2004 Texas A&M. Concrete Canoe Team

Transcription

1 2004 Texas A&M Concrete Canoe Team

2 Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Hull Design 1 Analysis 2 Development and Testing 3-4 a. Material Selection 3 b. Application Procedures 4 c. Aesthetics 4 Project Management & Construction 5 Appendix A References Appendix B Mix Proportions Appendix C Repair Procedures Report List of Figures Figure 1 Drag Comparisons 1 Figure 2 Moment Analysis 2 Figure 3 Moment Curvature 2 Figure 4 Rolled Finish 4 Figure 5 Chevron Creation 4 Figure 6 Team Organization Chart 6 Figure 7 Construction Schedule 7 List of Tables Table 1 Features of Previous Canoes 1 Table 2 Mix Designs 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Texas A&M University is located in College Station, Texas and is a representative of the Texas-Mexico Region. Texas A&M is the fourth largest university in the United States and is home to the largest undergraduate civil engineering program in the nation. The Texas A&M Concrete Canoe team made its first appearance in a national competition in 2002 when Goldeneye placed 15 th. The 2004 Texas A&M team is radically different from any predecessor in every area of the competition from team management to canoe design. This year s canoe, Silent Pride, utilizes a shallow v- bottom design combined with a moderate rocker in order to provide excellent tracking while maintaining maneuverability. Silent Pride is 22-3 long, 28 wide, and 12.5 deep. With the i help of extensive research, this year s team formulated a 60 pcf mix with an impressive 7- day compressive strength of 1700 psi allowing Silent Pride to be only 3/8 thick. Weighing in at only 160 pounds, Silent Pride is reinforced with two layers of alkali-resistant fiberglass mesh and carbon fiber tow. Reinforced gunwales provide additional structural support for Silent Pride. Aesthetically, Silent Pride is a beautiful cream colored canoe decorated with black chevrons on the interior. From start to finish, the 2004 Texas A&M concrete canoe team has been characterized by hard work and explosive interest. It is with great anticipation that Texas A&M University presents Silent Pride as they hope to emerge on the scene as a nationally competitive team.

3 HULL DESIGN Objectives Examine mistakes in previous canoes and identify solutions Create an efficient design with less frictional resistance than previous canoes After taking second place at the regional competition in 2003, inadequate design was identified as the primary cause for poor race performance. As a result, the design of Silent Pride began with a careful review of previous canoes and literature in order to create a faster and more maneuverable canoe. Table 1 provides details on the design features found in both Goldeneye (2002) and Caesar s Secret (2003). Table 1 Features of Previous Canoes Goldeneye Caesar's Secret Waterline Length 19 Feet 18 Feet Shape Rounded Flat Beam 36 Inches 32 Inches Rocker None None A review of these designs provided valuable insight into the behavior of canoes and the flaws inherent in each vessel. A rounded bottom on Goldeneye allowed the canoe to track well but caused problems with the initial stability. The flat bottom of Caesar s Secret fixed this problem, but the massive increase in wetted surface area resulted in a slower final product despite the slimmer design. Both designs also exhibited poor maneuverability due to the absence of rocker. A review of the literature showed that the drag force on a canoe can be found using William Froude s equation which states that the total drag force on a vessel is the sum of the wave drag and the skin drag. While the skin drag is a function of the shape of the canoe, the wave drag is based solely on the length of the canoe with longer canoes having less wave drag (Winters, 2001). In addition, increasing the length of a canoe also decreases the displacement/length ratio which is critical to a canoe s performance (Winters, 2001). A displacement/length ratio of is common for racing canoes, and estimating the weight of the displaced water to be 500 pounds for the two-man race, a waterline length of 22 feet was chosen providing a displacement/length ratio of Another important factor in the speed of the canoe is the length of the beam. A narrow canoe is faster than an equivalent wider design but may 1 exhibit problems with initial stability. The beam for Silent Pride was chosen to be 28 inches in order to reduce the wetted surface area and the drag force without compromising stability. Since the majority of the paddlers on the 2004 team would be inexperienced, it was decided that excellent tracking would be the priority in Silent Pride s design. However, it was imperative that this not be accomplished by sacrificing the turning capabilities of the canoe. With this in mind, a shallow v-bottom was chosen for the hull design. When combined with a moderate rocker, this hull shape allows for excellent maneuverability and tracking (Rounds, 2003). The rocker was set at three inches in the bow and stern of the canoe in order to meet this requirement. A rounded chine was also chosen, as this design reduces the wetted surface area and provides for increased maneuverability. Using Prosurf 3 s hull design software, the waterline depth of the canoe was found to be 7.5 inches in the coed race. Therefore, the total depth of the canoe was set at 12.5 inches providing five inches of free board, which, from experience, is known to be adequate. The research and time placed into the design of Silent Pride resulted in significant improvements that can be seen in a 30 percent reduction in wetted surface area and large decreases in the total drag force as seen in Figure 1. In every way, Silent Pride is expected to be the most efficient design Texas A&M has produced. Total Drag (lbs) Caesar's Secret Silent Pride Velocity (ft/s) Figure 1 Total Drag Comparisons

4 ANALYSIS Objectives Perform a two-dimensional analysis to determine moment envelopes Use a section analysis to determine material requirements Assess the need for additional structural elements Analysis of Silent Pride began by modeling the canoe as a beam that was discretized into 6 inch elements. ProSurf 3 was used to export the cross-sectional geometries for each of the elements beneath the waterline in order to calculate the volume of water displaced and the self weight of the canoe for each segment. These loads were then distributed over each element. The paddlers were assumed to be distributed loads applied at various locations in the canoe according to the appropriate load case under consideration. In all, two load cases with paddlers and one load case with the canoe being simply +50 ft-lbs supported on stands were considered in order to generate the moment envelope. The maximum -665 ft-lbs negative moment Figure 2 Moment Envelopes was found to be 665 ft-lb while the positive moment was only 50 ft-lb (Figure 2). After performing the hand analysis, the cr itical cross sections were entered into XTRACT, a composite section analysis program. XTRACT was then used to determine the cracking moment for the critical cross sections. By neglecting the reinforcement in this section analysis, the necessary strength of concrete to prevent cracking could be found. This parameter is of interest as few concrete canoes fail completely; however, cracks that propagate to the first layer of reinforcement are aesthetically unappealing and can result in leaking. With these considerations in mind, the controlling material property is the tensile strength of the concrete rather than its compressive strength. For Silent Pride, a tensile strength of 100 psi is needed according to the section analysis. When the final concrete mix was selected, its material properties were used to perform a final section analysis and 2 determine the factor of safety against cracking in the design. It -800 was found that the concrete alone -200 would offer a moment capacity Curvature (1/in) of 1400 ft-lb Figure 3 Moment - Curvature providing Silent Pride with a factor of safety of 2.1 against cracking (Figure 3). After completing the initial section lb) Moment (ft* analysis, XTRACT was used to output the moments of inertia and centroids for each of the critical cross sections. An analysis was performed by hand in order to determine the strength of the composite design. In order to simplify this analysis, only the longitudinal carbon fiber strands were considered to provide tensile strength. Using these assumptions, it was found that Silent Pride has a composite strength of 3000 ft-lbs providing a factor of safety of 4.5 against ultimate failure. To provide additional strength and resist cracking, two measures were considered. First, the thickness of the gunwales was increased. A thicker gunwale has been found to increase the overall rigidity of the canoe while providing additional strength for the large negative moment. Since the cross-sectional analysis was performed neglecting the gunwales, the dimensions of these elements were dictated by formwork materials rather than according to structural requirements. The second measure considered in Silent Pride was the use of ribs. Typically, these structural elements prevent the canoe from opening and increase the overall rigidity. However, a static analysis of the critical cross sections revealed that the stresses acting along the bottom of the canoe were not severe enough to warrant additional structural elements, and given their difficulty in construction, ribs were not used in Silent Pride.

5 DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING Objectives Develop a mix design meeting all material requirements with a unit weight less than 65 pcf Develop a reinforcement scheme with adequate strength and ductility Develop an application procedure providing necessary quality control MATERIAL SELECTION The development of a concrete mix for Silent Pride began with a thorough investigation of the controlling factors in a typical concrete canoe mix design. Starting in June, research regarding the latex/glass bead and water/cement ratios was performed with all mixes being made according to the 2003 CNCCC rules. Results of this research provided the 2004 team with a greater understanding of typical lightweight concrete mixes as well as providing valuable insight into the controlling factors in these mixes. Following these tests, two important changes were made in the materials chosen for testing. In previous years, a grey Type I cement was used in the mixes as it was readily available in the materials laboratory. In order to achieve a more aesthetically pleasing concrete, this cement was replaced with a white Type I cement. Compression tests conducted according to ASTM C109 revealed that the finer particles in the white cement also resulted in stronger concrete mix designs with increased workability. The second change in the materials chosen for testing occurred when the latex used in previous years became unavailable. The newer latexes ordered were identical in chemical composition but lacked a defoamer which proved to cause problems in the preliminary mix designs. Initial mix designs were patterned to have a theoretical maximum density (TMD) lighter than that of water in order to avoid relying on air content to achieve a low unit weight. This was done by maximizing the percentage of latex in the binder and using large amounts of 3M glass micropsheres; however, these mixes exhibited low strengths, high air contents, and poor workability. In order to resolve these problems, the TMD of the mixes was set above the weight of water allowing the percentage of portland cement in the binder to be increased while decreasing the amount of glass microspheres. In doing so, the 3 workability and average strengths of the mixes increased, but the air contents continued to be extremely high resulting in unstable mix designs. After discovering that the high air contents were a natural side effect of agitating the latex, it became evident that an admixture would be needed to counteract this negative byproduct. A defoamer from Defoamer.com was selected for research, and after testing, it was found that the defoamer significantly lowered air contents in the mix designs while providing large increases in stability and compressive strength. Tensile tests conducted according to ASTM C496 indicated that the tensile strength of the final mix design was 220 psi, more than double the strength needed to resist cracking (Table 2). Base Mix Intermediate Mix Final Mix water/cement ratio TMD 60 pcf 70 pcf 65 pcf Air Content 25% 25% 7% 7-day Strength 400 psi 900 psi 1700 psi σ, Standard Deviation 45 psi 125 psi 57 psi Tensile Strength 30 psi 90 psi 220 psi Table 2 Mix Designs After selecting a mix design with adequate strength and consistency, four different reinforcement types were considered. Kevlar, carbon fiber, polypropylene, and alkali-resistant fiberglass were chosen for testing, and 2 by 1 plates were created and tested according to ASTM C78. All of the plates exhibited similar strengths, but failed in surprisingly different manners. The kevlar reinforcement exhibited the highest strength failing at 65 lb, but the tight weave pattern of the reinforcement resulted in poor bonding of the concrete layers causing severe delamination. Plates reinforced with carbon fiber had similar strengths (62 lb), but also displayed problems with delamination. Polypropylene and fiberglass reinforced plates both failed at 60 lb, but exhibited better bonding and less delamination than the other reinforcements. Alkali resistant

6 fiberglass reinforcement was chosen as it was the cheapest reinforcement and also the most readily available that meets all structural requirements. APPLICATION PROCEDURES The next step in the development process involved finding an application procedure that would provide adequate quality control while meeting all aesthetic requirements. In order to test placement, a test cross-section was created and various methods of placement were investigated. In previous years, the concrete was placed by hand; however, this method provided very little control over the thickness of the canoes and also resulted in a poor aesthetic finish. Hand placement was considered again for Silent Pride, but limited success was found in improving the method. Another method using guide wires to control the thickness of the canoe was also considered for placement, but it was difficult to prevent the wires from sinking into the concrete when multiple layers were placed. After reviewing casting methods used by other teams, the method of Sheetcrete, first used by The University of California at Berkeley, was tested. Initially, this method presented problems that almost resulted in its abandonment. However, with practice, the method was found to provide excellent quality control while maintaining a pleasing aesthetic finish. The use of sheetcrete on the first prototype canoe revealed that air pockets had a tendency to form between layers resulting in poor mechanical bonding and delamination. This problem was quickly remedied by smoothing the plates with a vibrating finishing sander after they were placed on the mold. A unique addition to the method of sheetcrete was also developed. Following the placement of the concrete, dowel rods were rolled over the surface to determine uneven points on the final product and provide a uniform thickness over the entire Figure 4 Rolled Finish canoe (Figure 4). DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING (cont d) 4 The accumulation of all research came in the creation of two full scale prototype canoes. The first prototype, cast in early November, reviewed casting techniques and the necessary strength of the composite design. While sheetcrete proved to be an excellent method of application, the initial concrete mix design used in the creation of the canoe proved to be too weak. Extensive cracking occurred in the canoe during its first trial, and this result agreed with the analysis that a higher tensile strength would be needed. The first canoe also revealed the problematic air pockets which caused delamination to occur. After reviewing these mistakes and identifying appropriate solutions, the second prototype canoe, cast in late January, provided a full-scale test of the final mix design and improvements to the casting methods. In addition, this prototype provided a valuable opportunity to test several post-casting and finishing techniques that were used on the final product. AESTHETICS Several methods for coloring the exterior of the canoe were researched. However, difficulty was encountered in finding methods that could be used alone or in combinations and provide the desired color. After using the two prototype canoes to test a combination of stains and pigments and failing to obtain a uniform color, attempts to color the exterior of the canoe were abandoned. Efforts were then focused on using a heavily pigmented, but weaker, concrete in select locations in order to improve the aesthetic appeal of the interior. Testing on the second prototype canoe revealed that simple designs could be created in the canoe s interior by placing linoleum negatives of the desired shapes on the mold prior to placing the concrete. The resulting imprint in the concrete was then filled with a weaker, darker concrete (Figure 5). Using this method, black chevrons were cast on the white interior of Figure 5 Chevron Creation Silent Pride.

7 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION Objectives Create an efficient leadership structure for future canoe teams Generate a schedule identifying all critical path activities Improve mold techniques to create an easily reusable mold In previous years, Texas A&M concrete canoe teams have suffered heavily from the loss of senior leaders who were the primary source of knowledge on the team. When seniors graduated, they took with them valuable knowledge on how to efficiently design and construct a concrete canoe. In order to avoid this problem in future years, the 2004 team began with heavy recruitment of younger classes over the summer and the beginning of the academic year. In addition, the organizational structure of Silent Pride was completely redesigned to provide heavy involvement of younger members in every aspect of the team. From the beginning, these new team members were involved in all decision making processes, and a great deal of time was spent in training new members of the team in the construction process. This ensured that knowledge gained would be successfully passed down to future concrete canoe teams. Important changes were also made to the team structure. First, several co-captains were named to oversee mix design, construction, and paddling (Figure 6). Then, a shadow program was initiated for leadership. After the first semester, younger team members were identified who would be the 2005 team captains, and they worked under the current captains in order to receive training. This leadership structure proved most valuable in training the captain-elect as he was given the task of overseeing the second prototype canoe s construction. This allowed the future captain to encounter problems and gain experience managing the team in a setting that was not critical to the team s overall performance. Previous teams from Texas A&M also suffered heavily from the effects of falling behind schedule. As a result, strong emphasis was placed on remaining ahead of schedule in regards to all critical path activities. This emphasis combined with an unexpectedly large student involvement actually resulted in pushing the creation of Silent 5 Pride nearly two months ahead of schedule. Rather than be content, it was decided that the initial schedule would be abandoned and a new more aggressive schedule would be drafted taking into account the heavier student involvement (Figure 7). This new schedule included pouring two prototype canoes. These canoes allowed the team to conduct additional research in finishing techniques and application procedures thereby producing a better final product. The mold for Silent Pride was built on ideas from previous teams with a few improvements. Cross sections were cut from ½ plywood and spaced at three inch intervals in the bow and stern and six inch intervals throughout the remainder of the canoe allowing the shape to be captured more accurately in the critical sections. Polystyrene foam blocks were placed between the cross sections and cut to shape using a hot wire. They were then overlaid with joint compound that could easily be sanded to a perfectly smooth finish. Foam insulation was used to form the gunwales as it provided an ideal thickness and a smooth finish while being cost effective. With the aggressive changes in schedule and the decision to pour two canoes within two weeks in the spring semester, the mold needed to be ready for immediate reuse with minimal effort. Shrink wrap was chosen as a release agent since it could be replaced quickly, and removable gunwale strips were used as they could easily be refitted to the mold without having to be recreated. After casting, the final product was then cured for seven days in a 100 % moisture environment before being removed from the mold. After removal, the deck plates were cast, and the canoe was cured for an additional seven days. Finally, several thin coats of grout were applied on the interior and exterior of the canoe and sanded to a smooth surface before the outside was coated with a high gloss concrete sealant giving Silent Pride a beautiful cream colored exterior.

8 TEAM ORGANIZATION CHART Competing Team Members Non-Competing Team Members Rhett Dotson * Karen McCluskey ** Keith McBride ** Mike Hackney *** Team One: Research Preliminary Mix Design C Material Selection F Reinforcement Testing Aesthetics Testing Application Finishing Techniques Team Two: Construction Mold Construction C F F Mold Repair Mold Preparation 1st Prototype Canoe 2nd Prototype Canoe Final Canoe Rough Finishing Smooth Finishing Clear Coat Cross Section Team Three: Competition Paddling Team C F F Presentation Team Engineer's Notebook Design Report Team Four: Graphic Design Interior Graphics C F Exterior Graphics F Competition T-Shirts Team Five: Publicity Recruitment C Sponsors F Ryan Eurek Cameron Williams Laura Wagner Lynn Scofield Claire Hubbard Jennifer Fritcher Task Contribution C Team Captain F Future Team Leader * 2004 Head Captain ** 2004 Co-Captains *** 2005 Head Captain Figure 6 6 Luis Gonzalez Elizabeth Goodwin Brian Heiner Russel Kennedy Jonathan Neubauer Jason Olivier Tim Stocks F Ivan Avelar Eric Brown Morgan Sherrod

9 PROJECT SCHEDULE Activity July August 2003 September October November December January February 2004 March April May June Activity Mix Design Initial Testing Proportion Testing Reinforcement Testing Quality Control Testing Initial Testing Proportion Testing Reinforcement Testing Quality Control Testing Hull Design Hull Design Basic Mold Construction Basic Mold Construction Drywall and Sanding Drywall and Sanding Plaster Ribs Plaster Ribs Construction Mold Preparation 1st Boat Pouring and Curing Mold Modifications 2nd Boat Pouring and Curing Mold Preparation 1st Boat Pouring and Curing Mold Modifications 2nd Boat Pouring and Curing 2nd Boat Finishing 2nd Boat Finishing Final Boat Pouring and Curing Final Boat Pouring and Curing Final Boat Finishing Final Boat Finishing Repairs Repairs Application Techniques Application Techniques Research First Boat Research Finishing Techniques Second Boat Research First Boat Research Finishing Techniques Second Boat Research Miscellaneous Paddling Practice Technical Paper Presentation Stands and Cross Section Competitions Project Start: July 1, 2003 Texas/Mexico Regional Competition, South Padre Island, TX, April National Competition, Washington, D.C., June July August September October November December January February March April May June Paddling Practice Technical Paper Presentation Stands and Cross Section Competitions Project Completion: June 14, 2004 Planned Task Actual Task Task Extension PROJECT SCHEDULE Figure 7 7

10

11

12 APPENDIX A - REFERENCES ASTM. (2002). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens). C 109, West Conshohocken, Pa. ASTM. (2002). Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). C 78-02, West Conshohocken, Pa. ASTM (2002). Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. C , West Conshohocken, Pa. Bearkelium. Presentation, University of California at Berkeley. June 21, Philadelphia, PA. 16 th Annual National Concrete Canoe Competition. Prosurf. Version New Wave Systems, Inc., Jamestown, Rhode Island., Rounds, John. (2003). Boats, Paddling, and Gear, Basic Canoeing, Stockpole, Mechanicsburg, PA, Winters, John. (1997). The Shape of the Canoe. < #Bow%20and%20Stern%20Details> (August 15, 2003). XTRACT. Version Imbsen Software Systems. Sacramento, California A-1

13 APPENDIX B MIXTURE PROPORTIONS Mixture Designation: Hull Mix AIR AND CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS Component Quantity (Whether base or batch) Units Air Content by volume of concrete AIR 3.10% Cement (plain) ASTM Type: TYPE I c: Other Cementitious material 1* Fly Ash, Class C m 1 : 79.5 Other Cementitious material 2* DL 460 Latex (50% By Weight) m 2 : 46.5 Other Cementitious material 3* N/A m 3 : Other Cementitious material 4* N/A m 4 : Mass of all cementitious materials cm: (1) Cement to cementitious materials ratio c/cm: AGGREGATES / FIBERS Aggregates / Fibers Base Quantity ASTM Aggregat (SSD Aggregates) C127 Volume ( ) BSG (m 3 ) 1: 3M K15 Glass Microspheres W SSD,1 : : Natural Sand W SSD,2 : : N/A W SSD,3 : 4: N/A W SSD,4 : Batch Quantity (At Stock Moisture (kg/m3) W stk,1 :.77.5 W stk,2 : W stk,3 : W stk,4 : CoMaster Builders, Inc. ned W SSD,agg : W stk,agg : 319 (2) WATER Water W: 199 w batch : 147 Admixture #1: Glennium 3030 HRWR x 1 : 5650 ml/m 3 Admixture #2: Delvo Stabilizer x 2 : 620 ml/m 3 Admixture #3: Defoamer x 3 : 890 ml/m 3 Admixture #4: DL 460 Latex x 4 : ml/m 3 Water from admixture #1 w admix,1 : 5 Water from admixture #2 w admix,2 : 0.5 Water from admixture #3 w admix,3 : 0 Water from admixture #4 w admix,4 : 46.5 Total of free (surplus) water from all aggregates Σw free : 0 Total Water w: 199 w: 199 (3) Concrete density Water to cement ratio Water to cementitious ratio w/c: 0.49 w/cm: 0.38 * If the binder comes from the manufacturer mixed with water, include only the weight of the binder here. 1st column is used for the desired total water; the 2nd column is for water added directly to batch. w in this column = wbatch + wadmx,1 + wadmx,2 + wadmx,3 + wadmx,4. This value should match the value for w in the previous column. The sum of items in rows (1), (2), and (3) B-1

14 APPENDIX B MIXTURE PROPORTIONS (cont d) Mixture Designation: Deck Plate Mix AIR AND CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS Component Quantity (Whether base or batch) Units Air Content by volume of concrete AIR 3.10% Cement (plain) ASTM Type: TYPE I c: Other Cementitious material 1* Fly Ash, Class C m 1 : 79.5 Other Cementitious material 2* DL 460 Latex (50% By Weight) m 2 : 46.5 Other Cementitious material 3* N/A m 3 : Other Cementitious material 4* N/A m 4 : Mass of all cementitious materials cm: (1) Cement to cementitious materials ratio c/cm: AGGREGATES / FIBERS Aggregates / Fibers Base Quantity ASTM Aggregat (SSD Aggregates) C127 Volume ( ) BSG (m 3 ) 1: 3M K15 Glass Microspheres W SSD,1 : : Natural Sand W SSD,2 : : N/A W SSD,3 : 4: N/A W SSD,4 : Batch Quantity (At Stock Moisture (kg/m3) W stk,1 :.77.5 W stk,2 : W stk,3 : W stk,4 : CoMaster Builders, Inc. ned W SSD,agg : W stk,agg : 319 (2) WATER Water W: 163 w batch : 111 Admixture #1: Glennium 3030 HRWR x 1 : 5650 ml/m 3 Admixture #2: Delvo Stabilizer x 2 : 620 ml/m 3 Admixture #3: Defoamer x 3 : 890 ml/m 3 Admixture #4: DL 460 Latex x 4 : ml/m 3 Water from admixture #1 w admix,1 : 5 Water from admixture #2 w admix,2 : 0.5 Water from admixture #3 w admix,3 : 0 Water from admixture #4 w admix,4 : 46.5 Total of free (surplus) water from all aggregates Σw free : 0 Total Water w: 163 w: 163 (3) Concrete density Water to cement ratio Water to cementitious ratio w/c: 0.40 w/cm: 0.30 * If the binder comes from the manufacturer mixed with water, include only the weight of the binder here. 1st column is used for the desired total water; the 2nd column is for water added directly to batch. w in this column = wbatch + wadmx,1 + wadmx,2 + wadmx,3 + wadmx,4. This value should match the value for w in the previous column. The sum of items in rows (1), (2), and (3) B-2

15 APPENDIX B MIXTURE PROPORTIONS (cont d) Mixture Designation: Grout Mix AIR AND CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS Component Quantity (Whether base or batch) Units Air Content by volume of concrete AIR 3.10% Cement (plain) ASTM Type: TYPE I c: 1125 Other Cementitious material 1* Fly Ash, Class C m 1 : 199 Other Cementitious material 2* N/A m 2 : Other Cementitious material 3* N/A m 3 : Other Cementitious material 4* N/A m 4 : Mass of all cementitious materials cm: 1324 (1) Cement to cementitious materials ratio c/cm: AGGREGATES / FIBERS Aggregates / Fibers Base Quantity ASTM Aggregat (SSD Aggregates) C127 Volume ( ) BSG (m 3 ) 1: Natural Sand W SSD,1 : : N/A W SSD,2 : 3: N/A W SSD,3 : 4: N/A W SSD,4 : Batch Quantity (At Stock Moisture (kg/m3) W stk,1 : 88.3 W stk,2 : W stk,3 : W stk,4 : CoMaster Builders, Inc. ned W SSD,agg : W stk,agg : 88.3 (2) WATER Water W: 660 w batch : 660 Admixture #1: x 1 : ml/m 3 Admixture #2: x 2 : ml/m 3 Admixture #3: x 3 : ml/m 3 Admixture #4: x 4 : ml/m 3 Water from admixture #1 w admix,1 : Water from admixture #2 w admix,2 : Water from admixture #3 w admix,3 : Water from admixture #4 w admix,4 : Total of free (surplus) water from all aggregates Σw free : 0 Total Water w: 660 w: 660 (3) Concrete density 2072 Water to cement ratio Water to cementitious ratio w/c: w/cm: 0.49 * If the binder comes from the manufacturer mixed with water, include only the weight of the binder here. 1st column is used for the desired total water; the 2nd column is for water added directly to batch. w in this column = wbatch + wadmx,1 + wadmx,2 + wadmx,3 + wadmx,4. This value should match the value for w in the previous column. The sum of items in rows (1), (2), and (3) B-3

16 Mixture Designation: Black Grout Mix AIR AND CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS Component Quantity (Whether base or batch) Units Air Content by volume of concrete AIR 3.10% Cement (plain) ASTM Type: TYPE I c: 1125 Other Cementitious material 1* Fly Ash, Class C m 1 : 199 Other Cementitious material 2* N/A m 2 : Other Cementitious material 3* N/A m 3 : Other Cementitious material 4* N/A m 4 : Mass of all cementitious materials cm: 1324 (1) Cement to cementitious materials ratio APPENDIX B MIXTURE PROPORTIONS (cont d) c/cm: AGGREGATES / FIBERS Aggregates / Fibers Base Quantity ASTM Aggregat (SSD Aggregates) C127 Volume ( ) BSG (m 3 ) 1: Natural Sand W SSD,1 : : N/A W SSD,2 : 3: N/A W SSD,3 : 4: N/A W SSD,4 : Batch Quantity (At Stock Moisture (kg/m3) W stk,1 : 88.3 W stk,2 : W stk,3 : W stk,4 : CoMaster Builders, Inc. ned W SSD,agg : W stk,agg : 88.3 (2) WATER Water W: 660 w batch : 660 Admixture #1: Black Pigment x 1 : 330 Admixture #2: x 2 : ml/m 3 Admixture #3: x 3 : ml/m 3 Admixture #4: x 4 : ml/m 3 Water from admixture #1 w admix,1 : 0 Water from admixture #2 w admix,2 : Water from admixture #3 w admix,3 : Water from admixture #4 w admix,4 : Total of free (surplus) water from all aggregates Σw free : 0 Total Water w: 660 w: 660 (3) Concrete density 2072 Water to cement ratio Water to cementitious ratio w/c: w/cm: 0.49 * If the binder comes from the manufacturer mixed with water, include only the weight of the binder here. 1st column is used for the desired total water; the 2nd column is for water added directly to batch. w in this column = wbatch + wadmx,1 + wadmx,2 + wadmx,3 + wadmx,4. This value should match the value for w in the previous column. The sum of items in rows (1), (2), and (3) B-4

17 APPENDIX C - REPAIR PROCEDURES REPORT I. Overview of Damage Silent Pride was damaged during the men s sprint race at the Texas/Mexico regional competition when it collided with a competitor s canoe. The accident occurred after the men s team completed the turn when the competitor s canoe struck the front of Silent Pride (Figure 1) and slid down the side, scarring the gunwales and tearing the canoe s lettering. The affected portion of the hull can be seen in Figure 2 where it is identified by a red frame. Figure 1 Collision During Men s Sprint Race Figure 2 Affected Portion of the Canoe Overall, the structural integrity of the canoe was not compromised. However, the external finish was scarred in several places leaving black and red stains from the competitor s canoe (Figures 3, 4, and 5). After review, it was determined that these stains were actually places where the canoe s sealant had been scraped away and the concrete stained. In addition, the lettering for the canoe s name was also torn (Figure 6). Figure 3 Stains On the Side of the Canoe Figure 4 Stains on the Gunwale Figure 5 Stains and Scratches on the Gunwale Figure 6 Torn Lettering C-1

18 II. Description of Repair APPENDIX C - REPAIR PROCEDURES REPORT The first step in the repair of the canoe is the removal of the lettering. Typically, this lettering can be removed with the use of a razor blade alone. After removing the lettering, the sealant covering the affected portion of the canoe will be removed with the use of sandpaper. The area of sealant to be removed will extend approximately eight feet down the length of the hull and cover the entire left side, including the gunwales. However, this repair assumes that the new coats of sealant will be able to be blended with the existing coats of sealant. Since no tests have been performed to see if this is possible, it may be necessary to remove the sealant from the entire canoe although this option is not desirable. If the latter holds true, then all of the lettering and decals from the exterior of the canoe will also have to be removed. Then, the sealant will be removed from the entire canoe as described before. Once this is complete, two coats of new sealant will be applied. Finally, the lettering and any decals removed will be replaced to match the original final product. III. Certification of Repairs We certify that the causes of damage listed in this report did occur as mentioned and that the repairs listed above have been followed as described with no variation. In addition, an addendum to this report will be included in the Engineer s notebook detailing which option was chosen in regards to the removal of the sealant. Rhett Dotson Dr. Anthony Cahill 2004 TAMU Concrete Canoe Captain ASCE Faculty Advisor C-2