Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Moe Moe Mano

2015 Concrete Canoe

Design Paper

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Hull Design and Structural Analysis……………………………………………….…………...3-4

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

Construction……………………………………………………………………….……………8-9

Project Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………10

Design Drawing…………………………………………………………………….……………11

List of Appendices

Appendix A - References…………………………………………………………...……………12

Appendix B – Mixture Design Proportions………………………………………………..…….13

Appendix C – Bill of Materials………………………………………………………..…………14

Appendix D – Example Structural Calculation……………………………………...……….15-16

List of Figures

Figure 1: Total Man Hours……..…………………………………………………………………1

Figure 2: Total Expenses………………………………………………………………………….1

Figure 3: Depiction of Hull Design……………………………………………………………….2

Figure 4: Free body diagram for maximum negative moment loading……………………..…….3

Figure 5: Shear and moment diagram for maximum negative moment loading…………….……3

Figure 6: Internal stresses diagram for maximum negative moment loading…….……….………3

Figure 7: ASTM C Standard Compressive Strength………………………………………………4

Figure 8: ASTM C496 Split Cylinder Tension Test………………………………………………5

Figure 9: Layers of reinforcement mesh…………………………………………………………..6

Figure 10: Depiction of molds…………………………………………………………………….7

Figure 11: Cross sections for canoe……………………………………………………………….7

Figure 12: Wooden mold at 90% completion……………………………………………………..7

Figure 13: Plaster covered mold...............................................................................................…...8

Figure 14: Bubble wrap…………………………………………………………………………...8

Figure 15: Sewing of wire mesh…………………………………………………………………..8

Figure 16: Completed canoe………………………………………………………………………8

Lists of Tables

Table 1: Canoe specifications…………………………………………………………………….ii

Table 2: Canoe concrete mix design……………………………………………………………...ii

Table 3: Major milestone………………………………………………………………………….1

Table 4: Loading Scenarios……………………………..………………………………………...3

Table 5: Mix design 1……………………………………………………………………………..4

Table 6: Mix design 1 test results………………………………………………...……………….5

Table 7: Final mix design…………………………………………………………………………5

Table 8: Final mix design weights and strengths………………………………………………….5

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityMoe Moe Mano

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moe Moe Mano

ii

i

Executive Summary

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University or “The Harvard of the Sky” is located in sunny Daytona Beach, six miles away from the beach. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace. It is the only fully accredited, aviation-oriented university in the world. Founded in 1925 in Cincinnati Ohio, Embry-Riddle has moved from Cincinnati to Miami then finally to Daytona Beach in 1965. Now 50 years later, Embry-Riddle has over 30,000 students at each of its two main campuses, Daytona Beach, Florida, and Prescott, Arizona, and 150 Worldwide Campuses located in the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. On our campus in Daytona Beach, the most beautiful sunsets occur over our flight line. Inspired by the beautiful sunsets, the aesthetics lead chose a Hawaiian theme for this year’s canoe.

Housed in the College of Engineering is the Civil Engineering Department. The Civil Engineering Department is one of the smallest engineering departments on campus and because of that, only three other concrete canoes have been made and none of them have ever won in a conference. Being at an aviation oriented school, past senior design projects have been concrete airplanes or concrete rockets. This year, however, five intelligent individuals came together and made the concrete canoe their senior project.

All of the five students designing and building the canoe had a little bit of experience with the concrete canoe competition. The Project Manager, Mix Design Lead and Construction Lead were all leaders for the concrete canoe team last year that produced Miracle. Still being new to the competition, having little resources and a very tight budget, the senior design team had an uphill battle ahead of them. Knowing the mix design from Miracle was not a competitive mix, the materials lead used new, innovative and sustainable material to design a mix that could compete with the best schools in the conference. Utilizing what they have learned from last year’s conference in Tampa, Florida and the knowledge they accumulated from other schools at the conference, Moe Moe Mano was born. At 19’1” and 200 pounds, this is the longest, lightest and most impressive canoe to ever come out of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

“Moe Moe Mano” Design Specifications

Weight (estimated)

200 lbs

Length

19’1”

Max Width

33”

Hull Thickness

0.5 inches

Color

Gray and Blue

Reinforcement

HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in. x 25 ft.

Table 1: Moe Moe Mano's Specifications

“Moe Moe Mano” Design Mix Properties

Compressive Strength (28 days)

2,288 psi

Tensile Strength (7 days)

197 psi

Dry Unit Weight

68 pcf

Wet Unit Weight

70 pcf

Table 2: Concrete Mix Design Properties

Project Management

This year, the Concrete Canoe was chosen for the Civil Engineering senior design project. The team leaders were chosen from the most experienced and brightest students in the department. In August, the project manager, structures lead, aesthetics lead, mix design lead and construction lead were chosen based on which area they excelled in and their previous experience and skills. In early September, a rough draft schedule was made to provide a base line of what needed to be accomplished. One thing was missing from the rough draft schedule though: the little experience and knowledge of the concrete canoe competition. There were major delays in some components of choosing a mix design and constructing the mold because setbacks were not included in the schedule.

One of the most important processes to the project management of designing a canoe is keeping the cost of production low. Our senior design class was never given a budget, but we were told that the cost of building Moe Moe Mano needed to be low. In order to keep the cost down, half the materials used were found in our Materials Lab at Embry-Riddle. A wooden mold was also used instead of a foam mold, which cut the cost by $2000.

Using the rough draft schedule, a critical path was determined. The critical path included completion of the following: mix design, AutoCAD drawing, construction of the mold and casting day. With the original schedule, there was an allowed float of one week. With the completion of the schedule, major milestones were also selected. Below is a table of the major milestones for Moe Moe Mano.

Major Milestones

Proposed

Actual

Hull Design Selection

9/26/2014

9/26/2014

Material Design and Testing

12/10/2014

1/16/2015

Structural Analysis Completion

12/1/2014

12/1/2014

Mold Construction Completion

1/12/2015

2/14/2015

Casting Day

1/12/2015

2/15/2015

Canoe Completion

3/11/2015

3/17/2015

Table 3: Major Milestones for Moe Moe Mano

Below is a chart of how many man hours it took to design and build Moe Moe Mano, between the five team leaders.

Figure 1: Total Man Hours dedicated to Moe Moe Mano from the five team leaders

Figure 2: Total Expenses for Moe Moe Mano

In order to maintain safety at all times in the lab, safety presentations were given during ASCE meetings.

1

Organization Chart

Structures Lead

Liam Goodall – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 0 years

Researched hull design, designed canoe, completed all structures hand calculations

Mix Design

Nadia Correa – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 2 years

Researched best materials to use in mix design, oversaw and conducted mix design testing, in charge of materials during casting day

Project Manager

Stephanie Cleary – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 2 years

Oversaw all aspects of the project. In charge of AutoCAD drawings, design paper and presentation

2

Construction Lead

Mohammed Qahwaji – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 2 years

Researched best options to construct the mold, constructed the entire mold, in charge of choosing reinforcement

Aesthetics Lead

James Staite – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 2 years

In charge of all aesthetics for the canoe (including cross sections, display, canoe stands) and choosing the name

Hull Design and Structural Analysis

This year, the structures lead decided to use a completely new design. For good stability and good paddling efficiency, a shallow arch hull design was chosen. The maximum width of the hull affects the stability of the canoe and the efficiency of paddling. With this in mind, a canoe width of 30” was chosen to ensure a good balance between stability and paddling efficiency. Due to the selection of the shallow arch hull shape, the base of the canoe will consist of a flat base that is width*(1/5) inches wide, or 6 inches at the canoe centerline. This base is flanked by two quarter circles that each have a radius of width*(2/5) inches, or 12 inches at the centerline. On top of these quarter circles, there are vertical side walls that have a height equal to the chosen depth minus the radius of the quarter circles at any given point. At the centerline of the canoe, the height of these side walls is 2 inches. This decrease is directly proportional to the total width of the cross section at any given point.

Figure 3: Depiction of the hull design

The rocker height was chosen to be 1.5 inches, as the two racecourses involve sharp turns. Having a relatively steep rocker will allow the canoe to make these sharp turns. A hull thickness of 0.5” was chosen so the canoe would not be extremely heavy, but it will still be strong. The final length of the canoe was chose to be 19’-1” because a shorter canoe requires less materials and it will then be lighter. It also provides a balance between weight and max speed. Also, 2 feet of floatation will be added on either end. This number provides enough flotation for the canoe to pass the submersion test

In order to analyze the canoe using only 2-D analysis, the following assumptions were made:

· The canoe was analyzed as a diamond-shaped beam.

· The distributed load for the canoe weight and the hydraulic load are both triangular shaped.

· The people rowing the canoe were assumed to be 200 lbs for males and 160 lbs for females.

The only analysis was 2-D analysis done by hand by the structures lead. Seven different loading scenarios were done to calculate the maximum moment, compressive strength (in psi) and tensile strength (in psi).

For the analysis portion of the canoe, shear and moment diagrams need to be computed to find the stresses. They were found across the length of the canoe due to a longer moment arm and a smaller section modulus. The loading for the canoe involves a triangular distributed load on the base of the canoe for the hydraulic forces, a triangular distributed load on top of the canoe for the canoe weight, and point loads for the passengers.

For the moment calculations involving the moment caused by the display, this same model was used except passenger loading and the hydraulic distributed load were removed. The shape of the length of the canoe is, per the analysis method, able to be anything wider than two triangles.

3

Loading Senario

Max Moment (lb*in)

Max Compressive Strength (psi)

Max Tensile Strength (psi)

Max Neg Moment

-27480

42.7

84.5

Max Positive Moment

13740

42.3

21.3

Coed Loading

-8760

13.6

26.9

2 Men Loading

-8066.7

12.5

24.8

2 Women Loading

-6453.3

10

19.8

Max Moment for Display Loading

7251.7

22.3

11.3

The following seven loading cases were analyzed: max negative moment, max positive moment, coed race loading, two men race loading, two women race loading, and max positive moment for display loading. A factor of safety of 1.5 will be added to the stresses caused by the max negative moment (the highest stress), so they become 64.05 psi in compression and 126.75 psi in tension. This also changes the moment to -41220 lb*in. Shear and moment diagrams as well as an internal stress diagram aided in finding the overall maximum moment, compression and tensile strength. Below is an example of the maximum negative moment diagrams.

Figure 4: Free body diagram of loading for maximum negative moment which has 1 woman and 1 male standing on either side of the canoe

Figure 5: Shear and moment diagram for the loading of maximum negative moment

Figure 6: Internal stresses diagram for the maximum negative moment

Table 4: Seven different loading scenarios showing the maximum moment, compressive strength and tensile strength

The material properties used for these calculations were given by the materials lead, construction lead and project manager. The density of the concrete being used for Moe Moe Mano is 50.14 lb/ft3. According to the project manager, the volume of the canoe is 5984.3 in3 for a 19’-1” canoe. Also, using HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in. x 25 ft reinforcement, the volume of steel needed is 154.99 in3 and the unit weight of steel is 500 lb/ft3. Using this, the composite unit weight of the entire canoe is:

Using this formula, the canoe average unit weight is 61.8 lb/ft3.

In using a factor of safety of 1.5, the structures lead wanted to make sure that Moe Moe Mano was ready to endure the treacherous waters of the concrete canoe competition.

4

Development and Testing

The ERAU mix design team used the previous year’s canoe “Miracle” as a baseline for a control mix. That mix consisted of Portland cement type I, local sand, 3M Scotchlite K1 microbeads, fly ash, and ADVA CAST 540. We aimed to reduce the canoe’s unit weight to at least 70 pcf or less, while maintaining or increasing the same strength as the previous year’s canoe.

We used ASTM C 109 standard test methods for 3-day compressive strengths, testing various modified designs of the baseline mix.

Figure 7: ASTM C 109 Standard Compressive Strength Test

The initial mixes contained variations of aggregates such as cenospheres, K1 microbeads, 1.0-2.0 mm poraver, and 2.0-3.0 mm Poraver, however the 2.0-3.0 mm poraver proved to be too large of an aggregate and decreased workability. Mixes that contained the 1.0-2.0 mm poraver provided better compressive strengths results and were lighter than those that contained the cenospheres therefore the team ordered 2 additional diameter sizes of Poraver, 0.5-1.0 mm and 0.25-0.5 mm Poraver aggregates. Of the initial 3 day compressive strength mixes, a mix that contained only Portland cement and metakaolin in its cementitious materials proved to be lighter than a similar mix that was comprised of Portland cement, metakaolin, fly ash, and slag cement. While designing and testing the new mixes, the structures team lead informed the materials lead of the necessary requirements for the mix, so the canoe will pass all the loading requirements. The compression of the concrete mix needed to be higher than 64.05 psi and the tensile strength needed to be higher than 126.75 psi. With that in mind, the mix design team went back to work in order to ensure these numbers were met.

By the end of the fall semester, the materials lead had chosen two mixes. Below is a table of one the mix designs chosen:

Mix Design #1 (NOT THE FINAL MIX DESIGN)

Material

Mass(g)

%Volume

Portland Cement

175

34.45

Fly Ash

75

14.76

Cementitious Total

250

49.21

Cork

5

0.98

Poraver (1-2mm)

120

23.62

K1 microbeads

30

5.91

Fibers

3

0.59

Aggregate Total

158

31.10

Water

90

17.72

ADVA Cast 540

10

1.97

Liquid Total

100

19.69

Batch Total

508

100.00

W/C ratio

 

0.4

Table 5: One of the mix designs chosen to continue testing at the end of the first semester

This mix had a water cement ratio of 0.4, which is a water cement ratio that was desired by the mix design team. The mix proved to be extremely lightweight which was needed for the canoe, but the only problem was the mix was not very workable. The following table shows the compressive and tensile strengths of this mix. These strengths both meet the requirements set by the structures lead.

5

Test Type

Test Results

Weight (g)

Compressive Strength (psi)

3 day

Cube 1

97.2

517

3 day

Cube 2

105.3

537.5

3 day

Cube 3

100.2

495

Table 6: Test results for the above mix design that included Fly Ash

The second mix design selected for further testing at the end of the second semester was the following mix.

Figure 8: Final concrete mix after the ASTM C496 Split Cylinder Tension Test

Mix Design #2 (The Final Mix Design)

Material

Mass(g)

%Volume

Portland Cement

200

38.87269

Metakaolin

50

9.718173

Cementitious Total

250

48.59086

Poraver (1-2mm)

20

3.887269

Poraver (0.5-1mm)

20

3.887269

Poraver (0.25-0.5mm)

35

6.802721

K1 microbeads

45

8.746356

Cork 1

5

0.971817

Fibers

3.5

0.680272

Aggregate Total

128.5

24.9757

Water

121

23.51798

ADVA Cast 540

15

2.915452

Liquid Total

136

26.43343

Batch Total

514.5

100

W/C ratio

 

0.544

1 Batch = 25 cubic inches

 

 

Table 7: Final Mix Design Selected for Moe Moe Mano

Concrete Mix

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Unit Weight (pcf)

7-day Tensile (psi)

28-day Compressive (psi)

Structural

68

70

197

2,288

Table 8: Final mix design weights and strengths

6

This mix design was chosen for the final mix for Moe Moe Mano. The tensile strength was found using the Split Cylinder Test, ASTM C496. Below is the result of the 3” diameter cylinder being tested.

There were many reasons for choosing this specific mix design. It contained Metapor – Metakaolin which increases concrete strength and the specific Metakaolin used in this mix design has small amounts of fine expanded glass which is used as a reactive pozzolanic hardening additive. Polypropylene micro-fibers were also used to greatly reduce plastic shrinkage cracking and aided in increasing concrete tensile strengthby acting as an added reinforcement. The K1 beads were utilized because they have a very low density and are a lightweight aggregate. K1 microbeads have a high-strength to weight ratio, with an isostatic crush strength of 250 psi. Like last year’s canoe, Miracle, ADVA Cast 540 was used because it is a high-range water reducing admixture. The most exciting aggregates that were used in the final mix design were cork and Poraver. Three types of Poraver were used in the final mix design, 0.25-0.5mm, 0.5-1.0mm and 1-2mm. Poraver helps provide a high compressive strength and a low density to the final mix design. Cork 0.2-0.5mm is impermeable, has a low specific gravity and is elastic. The Poraver and Cork used were also both sustainable materials. Poraver are tiny hollow glass spheres made from post-consumer recycled glass. Cork is a 100% natural, biodegradable, fully renewable and recyclable material. The cork used in Moe Moe Mano was imported from Portugal, which is one the top producing global exporters of cork. Cork harvesting is highly regulated in Portugal; trees aren’t harvested till they are 25 years old, and after that they are harvested every 9 years. The extraction methods used in Portugal do not damage the tree’s surface at all. Also, the cork trees are grown naturally, without the use of pesticides, irrigation or pruning.

The reinforcement chosen is HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in. x 25 ft which is reinforcement readily found at Home Depot and only cost $58.88 a roll. This reinforcement was chosen because it is a very strong yet thin material, so multiple layers can go into the 0.5” thick canoe The structures lead used the worst case scenario, maximum negative moment with one man and one women standing on either sides of the canoe, to compute a factored moment of -41220 lb*in needed for the canoe to not split in half. The construction lead took that moment and found that four layers of reinforcement were needed to achieve the desired moment. For 4 layers of reinforcement, the total tension force was 7408.8lb, the total compression force was 7803lb, and the moment was 55011.15lb*in. While laying the reinforcement down on the canoe though, it was found that four layers of reinforcement could not fit on the mold. Using our engineering judgment and knowing that nobody will stand on either side of the canoe at the same time, we only placed 2 layers of reinforcement down on the mold. Using the coed race loading, the factored moment is 13140 lb*in. This factored moment is 4x less than the maximum negative moment being used in the calculations. Knowing this, it is safe to say that only two layers of reinforcement would suffice for Moe Moe Mano.

Figure 9: 2 layers of the reinforcement mesh, HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in. x 25 ft

Given that the compressive and tensile strengths of the concrete and the moment from the reinforcement are much higher than the numbers the structures lead calculated Moe Moe Mano must have, we are confidant Embry-Riddle’s concrete canoe can easily withstand the rigors of this year’s competition.

7

Construction

Utilizing last year’s canoe, Miracle, as a base point, the construction lead decided that a similar method needed to be done to construct the mold. Last year, Miracle, was made out of a female mold. This proved to be problematic. More material and man hours are put into building a female mold over a male mold. Also, while placing the concrete on the mold last year, the concrete would slide down the sides and pool at the bottom of the canoe. This caused a 2” thick bottom to the canoe that needed to be grinded off and also used up more material than necessary. So, this year the construction lead chose to use a male mold. Male molds are more compatible with reinforcement instillation as well as placement of concrete.

Based on preliminary research, the most successful molds were found to be foam molds. A company was contacted to do the mold in the exact dimensions that were needed for the cost of $3,000. The foam mold idea quickly went away because of the inability to pay for it. The next and only option was building a mold out of wood like last year’s canoe.

In order to get the proper size for the cross sections, an AutoCAD drawing was made with correct cross sections for all of the 11 cross sections used for the mold. The calculations for the cross sections were given to the project manager by the structures lead and can be found in the Hull Design and Structural Analysis section of this paper.

Figure 11: Cross Sections for Moe Moe Mano built in AutoCAD

Once the cross sections were complete, they were printed out using a HP Designjet Plotter on 2’x3’ sheets of paper. The cross sections were then traced onto sheets of plywood and cut. A 2’x16’ and a 2’x8’ wood section were nailed together and were the base for the cross sections. Lastly, thin wood strips were placed between the cross sections to finalize the canoe shape.

Figure 10: Depiction of male mold and female mold

Figure 12: The wooden mold at 90% completion. Cross sections, wood base and wood strips exposed

When the wooden mold was complete, plaster was then placed over the mold. The plaster held the wood together and made the mold one solid piece. Once the plaster dried, it was sanded down until it was smooth, as to ensure the inside of the canoe would be smooth.

8

Figure 13: Wooden mold covered in plaster, before sanding took place

While applying the plaster, the construction lead noticed that removing the mold may prove to be difficult if too much plaster or too much concrete is applied in certain places. The canoe would get stuck on the mold and would be hard to remove. In order to prevent possibly breaking the canoe trying to get it out of the mold, bubble wrap was added to the outside of the plastered mold. The bubble wrap was placed with the “bubbles” on the inside of the canoe, so there would be no indents in the concrete. The bubble wrap will help take the canoe out of its mold easily and without harm.

The reinforcement was placed in two 6’ sections in the middle of the canoe and two 3’-10” sections at the ends of the canoe. Two layers of these reinforcements were placed on the canoe. In order to form the reinforcement to the shape of the canoe, the reinforcement was cut down the middle and sewed tight together.

9

Figure 15: ASCE Member sewing wire mesh through the two layers of reinforcement

The day before casting day, the materials lead divided the dry materials up into specific proportions and placed them into containers for easy mixing on casting day. 10 ASCE members showed up on casting day to help place the concrete on the canoe. After 13 hours, the canoe was complete and ready to cure.

Figure 14: Bubble wrap over the plastered mold

Figure 16: Completed canoe before curing

The canoe will not be taken out of the mold until a week after this paper has been submitted. In the two weeks before conference, Moe Moe Mano will be sanded, painted and have floatation placed in the ends.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityMoe Moe Mano

Embry-Riddle Aeronautic al University Moe Moe Mano

14

Design Drawing

Appendix A – References

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityMoe Moe Mano

2015 American Society of Civil Engineers National Concrete Canoe Competition. Rules and Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2015, from http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Membership_and_Communities/Student_Chapters/Concrete_Canoe/Content_Pieces/nccc-rules-and-regulations.pdf

“Alluvium”. University of Nevada, Reno 2014 Concrete Design Paper. Retrieved from: http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2014%20-%20Nevada%20Reno.pdf

ASTM C 150, “Standard Specification for Portland Cement,” ASTM International.

ASTM C 39/C 39M, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International.

ASTM (2011). “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM C496/C496M-11, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Canoe Design. (2013, January 1). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.canoeing.com/canoes/choosing/design.htm

“Drage”. Drexel University 2014 Concrete Canoe Report. Retrieved from: http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2014%20-%20Drexel%20University.pdf

Lightweight Concrete. (2014, March 19). Retrieved February 26, 2015, from http://www.poraver.com/us/applicationspna/lightweight-concrete/

University of Florida, Concrete Canoe. (2012) VindiGator. NCCC Design Paper, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

12

Appendix B – Mix Proportions

13

Mixture ID: Structural

Design Proportions (Non SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions

Yielded Proportions

YD

Design Batch Size (ft3):

27

Cementitious Materials

SG

Amount(lb/yd3)

Volume(ft3)

Amount(lb)

Volume(ft3)

Amount(lb/yd3)

Volume(ft3)

CM1

Portland Cement Type II

3.15

421.32

2.143

91.88

0.467

 

 

CM2

Metakaolin

2.60

105.33

0.649

22.97

0.142

 

 

CM3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CM4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Cementitious Materials:

 

526.65

2.79

114.85

0.61

 

 

Fibers

 

526.65

 

 

 

 

 

F1

Polypropylene

0.91

7.37

0.130

1.38

0.024

 

 

F2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Fibers:

 

7.37

0.13

1.38

0.02

 

 

Aggregates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1

Poraver (0.25mm-0.5mm)

Abs:

30

0.69

73.73

1.712

16.08

0.003

 

 

A2

Poraver (0.5mm - 1.0mm)

Abs:

25

0.46

42.13

1.468

9.19

0.320

 

 

A3

Poraver (1.0-2.0mm)

Abs:

20

0.42

42.13

1.608

9.19

0.351

 

 

A4

Cork (0.2mm-0.5mm)

Abs:

0

0.06

10.53

2.813

2.30

0.614

 

 

A5

3M K1 Microbubbles

Abs:

 

0.14

94.80

10.852

20.67

2.366

 

 

Total Aggregates:

 

263.32

18.45

57.43

3.65

 

 

Water

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W1

Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)

1.00

277.02

4.439

62.02

0.994

 

 

 

W1a. Water from Admixtures

22.12

 

4.82

 

 

 

W1b. Additional Water

254.90

55.14

 

W2

Water for Aggregates, SSD

1.00

 

 

 

Total Water (W1 + W2):

 

277.02

4.439

62.03

0.99

 

 

Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form

S1

Latex (if used)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2

Liquid Dye (if used)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3

Other Latex or Liquid Dye (if used)

1.10

9.48

0.138

2.07

0.030

 

 

P1

Pigment 1 (Powder Form)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Solids of Admixtures:

 

9.48

0.14

2.07

0.03

 

 

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 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 CAST 540

8.8

lb/gal

30.00

83.69

22.12

96.12

6.890

 

 

Ad2

Admixture 2

 

lb/gal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ad3

Admixture 3

 

lb/gal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water from Admixtures (W1a):

 

 

22.12

 

6.89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio

 

0.800

 

 

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio

 

0.53

 

 

Slump, Slump Flow, in.

 

 

 

 

M

Mass of Concrete. lbs

 

1083.84

237.76

 

V

Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft3

 

25.95

5.31

 

T

Theorectical Density, lb/ft3 = (M / V)

 

41.76

44.76

 

D

Design Density, lb/ft3 = (M / 27)

 

40.14

 

D

Measured Density, lb/ft3

 

 

 

 

A

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

 

3.88

 

 

Y

Yield, ft3 = (M / D)

 

27

 

 

Ry

Relative Yield = (Y / YD)

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C – Bill of Materials

Material

Quantitiy

Unit Cost

Total Price

Canoe Mold

Lump Sum

$215.76

$215.76

Tools

Lump Sum

$943.08

$943.08

Cork

0.034

15/lb

$1.73

1-2 mm Poraver 55 L Bag

27 lb

0.70/lb

$18.90

.05-1 mm Poraver 55 L Bag

33 lb

0.7/lb

$23.10

0.25-0.5 mm Poraver 55 L Bag

38 lb

0.7/lb

$26.60

1/2 in x 4 ft x 25 ft Hardware Cloth

Lump Sum

$294.40

$294.40

ADVA Cast 540

0.0685 ft3

23.99/lb

$112.86

PSI Fiberstrand 100

0.1 ft3

3.24/lb

$1.85

K1 Mircrobeads

0.303 ft3

18.78/lb

$40.09

Metakaolin

0.336 ft3

0.02/lb

$0.86

Portland Cement

1.35 ft3

0.09/lb

$11.38

 

Total Cost

$1,690.61

14

Appendix D – Example Structural Calculations

2 Male Loading Scenario

Assumptions:

- The canoe was analyzed as a diamond-shaped beam

- The distributed load for the canoe weight and the hydraulic load are both triangular shaped

- The canoe dimensions used in the calculations are exactly as specified

- The people rowing the canoe were assumed to be 200 lbs for males

Free Body Diagram

Shear and Moment Diagrams

15

Centroid of base = 0.5 in / 2 = 0.25 inches from bottom

Centroid of arcs = 12 in – 2r/π r = 12 in – 0.5 in/2 = 11.75 in

arc centroid = 12 – (2*11.75)/ π = 4.52 inches from bottom

Centroid of sides = 12 in + 2 in/2 = 13 inches from bottom

Area of base = 6 in * 0.5 in = 3 in2

Area of each arc = (πr12)/4 - (πr22)/4 = (π*122)/4 – (π*11.52)/4= 9.23 in2

Area of each side = 0.5 in * 2 in = 1 in2

Y (in)

A (in)

A*y (in2)

Base

0.25

3

0.75

Arc

4.52

9.23

41.72

Arc

4.52

9.23

41.72

Side

13

1

13

Side

13

1

13

Σ

23.46

110.19

Centroid = ΣA*y / ΣA = 110.19 in3/23.46 in2

Centroid = 4.70 inches from base

Moment of Inertia

Base: Ibase = I + Adbase

dbase = y – 0.25 in = 4.70 – 0.25 = 4.45 in

Ibase = bh3 + bhdbase2 = (6)(0.53) + (6)(0.5)(4.452)

Ibase = 60.16 in4

Base (each): Ibase = I + Adsides

dsides = ((ysides – y)2 + (r – 0.5 – b/2)2)1/2

= ((13 - 4.70)2+(12 - 0.25 + 3)2)1/2

dsides = 16.92 in

I = bh3 = (0.5)(23) = 4 in4

Isides = 4 in4 + (1 in)(16.92 in)2

Isides = 290.3 in4

Arc (each): Iarc = I + Adarc

darc = ((y-yarc)2 + (r – yarc +b/2)2)1/2

= ((4.70-4.52)2 + (12 – 4.52 + 3)2)1/2

darc = 10.48 in

I = 0.0549r14 – 0.0549r24

I = 0.0549(124) – 0.0549(11.54) = 178.20 in4

Iarc = 178.20 in4 + (9.23 in2)(10.48 in)2

Iarc = 1191.9 in4

Total moment of inertia of cross section = 60.2 in4 + 2(1191.9 in4) + 2(290.3 in4)

Total Moment of Inertia of cross section =3024.6 in4

16

Total Project Man Hours

Total Man HoursResearchMix Design/TestingConstructionAnalysis/AutoCADDesign Paper200963215840

Moe Moe Mano Expenses

[VALUE][VALUE][VALUE]

Canoe MoldToolsMix Materials215.76943.08531.7700000000001