ULTRA DESIGN PAPER 2015 ASCE CONCRETE CANOE COMPETITION UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.i Executive Summary.....ii Project Management....1 Organization Chart...2 Hull Design.. 3 Structural Analysis... 4 Development and Testing 5-7 Construction.. 8-10 Project Schedule.11 Design Drawing.12 Appendix A References. Appendix B Mixture Proportions Appendix C Bill of Materials. i
For the past 16 years, Miami has been the home for Ultra Music Festival, a celebration of electronic music that not only fills the city with vibrant and colorful people, but also generates an economic boom year after year with tourists coming from all over the world. This annual music festival has become a tradition for the young generation in Miami, and it is for that reason that UM-ASCE Concrete Canoe team decided to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Image 1: Main Stage at Ultra Music Festival call the 2015 canoe, Ultra. With this theme, we hoped to exemplify the University of Miami s energetic, driven, and enthusiastic attitude and bring that excitement to the 2015 ASCE Southeastern Student Conference, as a taste of one of Miami s most famous events. The University of Miami is located in the heart of Coral Gables, Florida and has become one of the most diverse academic institutions in the nation. Founded in 1925, the University of Miami is currently home to over 15,000 students from across the globe. The College of Engineering is one of 13 colleges at the University of Miami with approximately 1000 undergraduate students, 160 of whom study in the Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering Department. Each year, the University of Miami s Concrete Canoe Team competes in the Southeastern Student Conference (SESC). In 2005, the team revived its canoe program after a brief hiatus with The U-boat. Four years later, our team made it to top ten two years in a row with The Storm Surge and La Fuerza! Two years ago, The Heat turned out to be the best University of Miami canoe finished product through the use of a female mold for Canoe Properties Weight (approximate): 200 lbs Length: 21.5 Maximum Width: 36 Maximum Depth: 17 Average Thickness: ½ Colors: Black, Silver, with Neon Spots Concrete Unit Weight 62.4 pcf Compressive Strength 1600 psi Tensile Strength 385 psi Reinforcement Ruredil X Mesh Gold construction. This being our 10 th year competing and learning from previous mistakes, we are confident that Ultra will have great chances of placing and perhaps going to Nationals. We hope to be making University of Miami s Concrete Canoe history. Ultra will showcase the knowledge and experience that the University of Miami ASCE chapter has acquired in the design and construction of past concrete canoes. Having designed to sail through the water at high speeds with smooth and stable turns, Ultra will be a top contender at the 2015 SESC. ii
PROJECT MANAGEMENT The project management of Ultra incorporated an upgraded method of construction with proven quality controls to build upon past weaknesses with new designs and innovations. To stay on task, responsibilities were divided by the co-captains amongst the team members. Major milestones included hull design completion, final mixture selection, mold completion, canoe casting, and form removal. Prior to the release of the 2015 concrete canoe rules, a tentative schedule was formulated to accomplish these tasks. Multiple makeup days and contingency plans were formulated to ensure Ultra would be completed in time for the competition. This schedule allowed the team to keep on track and on budget despite several hiccups along the way. The project was consistently at or close to the initial schedule, allowing time to institute levels of quality control. The prescribed schedule also allowed extra time to implement new ideas, such as a three-part modular mold design. The team observed proper preparation methods for each task and safety measures were always a top priority. Required safety standards were implemented for each individual phase of the project and updated Material Safety Data Sheets for the materials used were readily available. Man-Hours Spent on Each Phase 1200 hrs 300 hrs 175 hrs Design Testing Construction Safety was of the utmost concern throughout the process, both in the construction phase and the testing phase. The construction site and the lab were kept clean, organized, properly ventilated, and properly lighted at all times. The use of gloves, masks, and protective eyewear was a requirement for anyone working with or near chemicals and certain harmful materials. Use of power tools was limited to members with proper training and experience. Closed toed shoes were mandatory during construction sessions to minimize the risk of injury to any members of the team. Quality control was of high importance during the construction of Ultra. Experienced team members arranged teaching sessions to demonstrate proper casting techniques for the new members. This training helped immensely to familiarize the whole team with the construction process. At least one of the co-captains was present at every construction or testing session to provide expertise and oversee development. This year s team was incredibly devoted and dedicated to their project, resulting in the clean and stylish finished product of Ultra. 1
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Project Manager Hector Castaneda (Senior) 2 nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Project Manager Michael Herrera (Junior) 1 st year in Concrete Canoe Competition Mix Design and Testing Josh Jordan (Grad.) 4 th year in Concrete Canoe Competition Mackenzie Cerjan (Senior) 2 nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Valentino Rinaldi (Grad.) 1 st year in Concrete Canoe Competition Hector Castaneda (Senior) Michael Herrera (Junior) Construction and Development Codi Funakoshi (Senior) 2 nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Sergio Claure (Senior) 3 rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Sathvika Ramaji (Senior) 3 rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Jimena Lopez (Senior) 2 nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Mackenzie Cerjan (Senior) 2 nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Crystal Leon (Junior) 1 st year in Concrete Canoe Competition Hector Castaneda (Senior) Leonard Barrera (Senior) 3 rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition Eric Antmann (Grad.) 1 st year in Concrete Canoe Competition Michael Herrera (Junior) Design Paper and Presentation Michael Herrera (Junior) Hector Castaneda (Senior) Codi Funakoshi (Senior) 2
HULL DESIGN The 2015 concrete canoe team set out upon designing a new and innovative shape for Ultra. This was done by studying the previous year s design and understanding what problems the canoe and rowers experienced while it was in the water. We determined there were two main concerns, which ultimately defined the final hull design for this year s canoe: thickness of the hull, and the width and length of the canoe. The 2014 concrete canoe, The Concrete Jungle, had suffered a longitudinal crack in its keel during the competition, which compromised the seaworthiness of the entire canoe. Our primary objective for this year s canoe was to ensure the integrity of the structure during the long drive to conference and under the stresses of competition. In order to increase the strength of the canoe, we developed multiple options to ensure that this year s competition went smoothly. The first measure we implemented in Ultra was to increase the thickness of the keel of the canoe to a minimum of ¾ inch from ½ inch. The Concrete Jungle, had suffered a crack running through the keel, which had been constructed too thinly. To account for discrepancies inherently present between the design and the actual finished product, we conservatively increased the thickness of the hull by 50% to insure that such an event didn t occur again. The second measure we implemented was to use two layers of reinforcement that consisted of two unique meshes. The first mesh consisted of a uniaxial carbon fiber polymer that would allow the keel to resist the tensile stresses experienced along the longitudinal axis. This layer was placed closer to the water than the second layer, which would allow it to Image 2: Rotational analysis of canoe. better handle the longitudinal tensile forces. The second layer was a biaxial Ruredil X gold mesh that lent the canoe tensile strength in both the longitudinal and latitudinal directions. The rowers from 2014 concrete canoe commented that they felt cramped inside the canoe, especially during the 4 person races. They also complained that the canoe did not feel very stable while they turned. To fix this problem, the design team decided that they would make the canoe 21.5 feet long and 36 inch wide in order to increase the space available to rowers. This also had the added advantage that it allowed us to decrease the height of the walls of the canoe, permitting rowers of any size to easily reach over the sides with their paddles. After thorough consideration of the final design for the canoe, the team concluded that a combination of a thicker, wider and more stable canoe would be the key to our success this year. This innovative design will help Ultra sail through its competition this year. 3
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Ultra was analyzed structurally by focusing on the critical loads and bending scenarios placed on the canoe, as well as hydrodynamically, concentrating on the manner in which the canoe must travel through the water. Ultra spans 21.5 feet and is 36 inches at its widest point. Using the STAAD Pro software for 2-D analysis, an estimate of the maximum shear and moment values were obtained which would be compared to our material testing data to confirm our canoe would safely resist the stresses exerted on the canoe during construction, finishing and racing. The first and most critical load scenario for Ultra is its removal from the mold. The concrete is its youngest at the time of removal (14 days) and at this point our concrete would reach a compressive strength of roughly 1200 psi. During removal stresses are placed in localized points and great care must be taken not to over exert the canoe. Utilizing a female mold bending moments are applied when the gunwales are facing upward. To start, the moment demand of the canoe was found using a 2D beam model, checking its capacity with STAAD Pro. The loading was assigned as a distributed load upward with simple supports at two points which would resist the force. Based on the results, a canoe with 1.2 ksi strength and a thickness of 0.75 was chosen and sufficient under these loading conditions. The first loading scenario modeled was measured for the highest loading condition, the four person co-ed race. It was assumed that each person would exert 75 pounds on each knee. The hydrostatic pressure was confirmed after determining the equilibrium of the model without a floating component and a linear triangular hydrostatic pressure distribution analysis was sought to address this loading condition. Additionally, the racing conditions, including the rowing action and rocking of the canoe, make for another critical scenario. To account for the rocking during paddling, the model was assigned spring supports spaced at the bottom surface to emulate the forces from the water conditions. The areas of concern were the curved regions of the canoe as our canoe cracked on the gunwales in past years. A maximum moment of 673 lb-in was calculated along the curved areas as well as the stresses due to hydrostatic forces; 12.3 ksi in compression and 8.5 ksi in tension. The critical areas of the canoe are the gunwale and keel. More notably, we realized that if the canoe was not smooth and harmonious stresses would not dissipate down the canoe, we would likely exceed our allowable compressive and tensile strengths. Transporting and displaying the canoe provided another loading scenario. Two stands, spaced 10 feet apart and spanning the width of the canoe, are used for canoe display, acting as rollers for support. Similar to the first scenario, the shear and moment are equivalent in magnitude and opposite in direction. This year for transport, our loading scenario has decreased and become almost negligible with the use of the female mold. The mold itself will act as the transport cradle for the canoe, bracing it at all points. The Ultra s largest stress, up to 925 psi, was during mold removal. While on the display, the stress could approach 640 psi. After carefully analyzing our loading conditions, we concluded that the critical facets of design contributing to a high level of performance and future success include a concrete with a compressive strength of at least 1050psi. These results were reassuring given that our concrete strength is 1,600 psi. 4
DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING During the planning stage of this year s UM-ASCE Concrete Canoe, the team was determined to learn from past designs and improve not only the physical qualities of the canoe, but also the workability and longevity of our design. We were focused on three main goals for Ultra, which were as follows: (1) maintain a unit weight of the concrete lower than 62.4pcf, (2) prevent cracks and holes from happening by increasing the compressive and tensile strengths, and (3) improve workability during construction. Since the team was satisfied with The Concrete Jungle s (2013-2014 UM-ASCE concrete canoe) results, we decided to base Ultra s concrete mix on last year s mix, with some improvements in the construction and reinforcement. Because the unit weight, aesthetics, and strength were similar from the 2013-2014 canoe, the team began much of the testing with the final mix design from the The Concrete Jungle. Ultra s concrete mix team maintained the same composition altering one independent variable at a time. In the end, the team was able to compare each test and establish the most desirable results. Each batch of concrete was tested using the same procedure. First, the team tested the compressive strength of the mix using 3 x6 cylinders (ASTM C39). Additionally, ASTM C138-10b was used to calculate the unit weights and gravimetric air content of the concrete mix. The modulus of rupture and flexural strength were obtained using 20 panels in accordance with the three-point bending tests (ASTM C78-10). For fear that the set up in which the canoe would rest during the curing period would not provide enough moisture, the team decided to test to observe if the results obtained in the lab were representative of the canoe in an outdoor environment. In order to analyze this variable, Image 3: Sample cylinder of concrete used Ultra s mix design team compared a cylinder placed in the moisture room to one placed inside the canoe tent. As predicted, the compressive strength of the concrete decreased by nearly 300psi when not cured in direct moisture. Therefore, special measures were taken to maintain adequate moisture during the time of curing. Humidifiers were placed inside the tent, as it was essential to maintain an environment rich in moisture. Past experiences of canoes cracking led to the decision to implement a second layer of reinforcement and a third layer of mix. Therefore, developing ideal proportions of cementitious materials were a top priority in order to maximize the strength while maintaining or reducing Ultra s total weight to an acceptable value. Building to decrease the total weight of the canoe, we incorporated the use of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag to replace some of the cement. Various proportions of slag were tested and it was determined that a 60% slag mix gave an optimum strength to weight ratio, excellent binding to the cement, and sustainable characteristics. Additionally, a small amount of fly ash was incorporated to further reduce the weight. Once the cementitious proportions were finalized, the next step was to find appropriate aggregates. Due to the success of the Poraver in the past years, the team first experimented with various gradations of the glass spheres, opting to use the 0.5-1mm and 5
0.25-0.5mm gradation in Ultra s mix. The team found that the 1-2mm size used in the past did not provide ideal binding and workability, so this gradation was omitted. In previous years, UM-ASCE concrete canoe team experimented with incorporating perlite, a material commonly used in construction of lightweight plasters and insulation. In general, Perlite proved unsuccessful as it soaked up large amounts of water in the batch, reduced workability, and expanded when subjected to heat. It was determined that the aggregates would only be composed of Poraver gradations. To provide tensile reinforcing within the mix, Grace Strux Polypropelene fibers were tested. The amount of fibers were varied during testing, and it was determined that 0.2% by weight was the optimum number for ample workability while still having sufficient tensile capacity. Image 4: S&P ARMO-Mesh used in between first and second layer Image 5: Ruredil X Mesh Gold used in between second and third layer Textile grids to reinforce the entirety of the canoe were researched to increase the structural performance of Ultra. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers were implemented between the first and second layers of mix in order to increase the tensile capacity. We used S&P ARMO-Mesh with a thickness of 0.157mm, and a theoretical tensile force of 628kN/m. Additionally, we used Ruredil X Mesh Gold, a textile typically used for seismic retrofitting for masonry structures. Ruredil X Mesh Gold is composed of a Poliparafenilenbenzobisoxazole(PBO) fiber unbalanced network with its rovings disposed along two rectangular directions at a nominal spacing of 10 mm and 18mm with a width of 2mm per roving. This results in a 46% open area. Additionally, while most FRP s use an epoxy resin, the X Mesh Gold uses a cementitious matrix to harden and bind the mesh with the existing structure. However, the 2015 rules prohibited the use of such reinforcing mortars. Therefore, the team researched the capacity of the mesh without the mortar. Overall, we found that the mesh would adequately harden and bind with the cementitious material from our 2015 mix design and the ultimate capacity in tension was reduced to 73%. We analyzed these two reinforcements since the CAE Department at the University of Miami has extensively experimented with these structural reinforcement systems. In addition, we incorporated admixtures that would add to the mix properties. The first admixture we used was Darex AEA, which is an aqueous solution of a complex mixture of organic acid salts. Darex AEA is specially formulated for use as an airentraining admixture for concrete. It complies with the requirements of the following 6
specifications for chemical admixtures for concrete: ASTM C260; AS1478 and AASHTO M154. We also used WRDA 60, a polymer based aqueous solution of complex organic compounds. WRDA 60 produces concrete with lower water content (typically 8 10% water reduction), improved workability and higher strengths. It complies with ASTM C494 Type A and D performance. Finally, we added UGL Drylock Latex to prevent water intrusion into the mix. In conclusion, for the 2015 concrete canoe various components behind the mix design were researched and tested to obtain optimal results. Cement, aggregates, tensile fibers, and admixtures were proportioned adequately to form Ultra s concrete mix. Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Polymer was used between the first and second layer of mix and X Mesh Gold was used between the last two layers of mix to prevent cracking due to external forces. Through development and testing of Ultra, is a structurally sound, lightweight, and durable canoe, will be a top contender at the 2015 SESC. 7
CONSTRUCTION The Mold The 2015 concrete canoe began with the design and construction of a mold that would enable the canoe to glide effortlessly through the water. The female mold allows for a smooth exterior shape, which optimizes the canoe s hydrodynamics and reduces the drag caused by the water. Taking into account the success of the previous year s canoe, this year s team decided that using a female mold would be crucial to the success of Ultra. However, several changes were made during the construction of the mold to account for the changes in the design of Ultra. To build the female mold, a CAD model of the canoe and corresponding mold were first created to optimize the design. This year s design incorporated a three part modular mold system that enabled us to more easily demold the canoe than the previous years two part modular mold. The design was divided into 20 unique sections which were then printed onto 24 x36 sheets of paper. Using a router, we precisely cut the pieces of plywood to form the ribbing of the mold in accordance with the drawings. After the sections had been cut, they were attached together with the use of 2x4 wood beams and self-drilling wood screws to form three modular mold sections. Once all of the modules were completed, metal flashing was attached to the top of the ribs using selfdrilling wood screws. The metal flashing ensured that bottom of the canoe was smooth and glides through the Image 6: Co-captain attaching metal flashing to the ribs of the canoe water efficiently In keeping with the idea of improving the design of the canoe, the bow, stern and keel line shape were of particular importance this year. Last year, the bow and stern were raised above the keel, which decreased the stability of the canoe and created many problems while, turning as were discussed in the hull design. As a result, the construction team had to be very careful while assembling the mold because of the complex shape of the keel line and the keel being elevated above the bow and stern. Casting and Finishing In preparation for casting day, the canoe team had many tasks to complete so that the casting could be done in a timely and efficient manner. All the concrete materials were measured out the day before. Reinforcement was measured, cut, placed, and marked. Image 7: Volunteer carefully verifying measurements of 8
On the day of casting, the mold was checked to make certain the sections would come apart on mold breaking day. The joints between the modules were then sealed using blue painters tape to insure that no concrete would fall between the sections. The interior was wiped down with a generous amount WD-40 to act as a releasing agent. Volunteers were divided into three groups: batching team, mold team, and reinforcement team. Each team worked on their designated task and moved to another group when they were needed. This organization provided a steady supply of concrete, an efficient method of reinforcement placement, and an overall excellent quality control of the finished canoe. The desired thickness of 3/4 inch at the bottom and ½ inch on the sides was verified using measuring tools. Ultra was cured by sealing the tent in which Image 8: Co-captain (right) and volunteers carefully placing mix on flashing to desired thickness. Notice the blue tape (left) used to secure the gap between sections. the casting occurred and placing humidifiers inside the sealed tent. The humidity was maintained at a maximum to guarantee that the concrete would not lose any water to the warm south Florida environment, while allowing two weeks for the concrete to properly Image 9: Volunteers completing tasks cure. Team members visited the area every day of the they were assigned to do. first week of curing to mist the concrete and to check for cracks or imperfections. Once the concrete was fully cured, the mold was released into three sections and the canoe was removed by the areas that had been freed from the form. In order to increase the overall hydrodynamic efficiency, we initiated a concrete sanding process at this stage in the construction. The outside of the canoe was sanded to decrease the turbulence that a rough outer surface might cause on the water. Sanding was also executed on the interior of the canoe for comfort purposes so that the paddlers Image 10: Co-captains and volunteers at the end of a would be kneeling and working on a successful Pour Day. smooth, safe concrete surface. The grit of the sandpaper used ranged from 60-400 and panels were continuously sanded until the desired smoothness was attained. Finally, our 2015 concrete canoe team 9
completed a thorough construction process that is evident by the high-quality of Ultra and its likely future success at the Southeastern Student Conference. 10
ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish Mode 1 First Meeting Introductions 0 days Tue 9/9/14 Tue 9/9/14 2 Research boat types 10 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 9/22/14 3 Previous canoes analysis 10 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 9/22/14 4 Final selection of shape 0 days Tue 9/23/14 Tue 9/23/14 5 AutoCAD Sections 5 days Tue 9/23/14 Mon 9/29/14 6 Concrete Mix Research 80 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 12/29/1 7 Material Procurement 60 days Tue 9/16/14 Mon 12/8/14 8 Mix testing 80 days Wed 10/1/14Tue 1/20/15 9 Mix design refinement 9 days Wed 1/21/15Sat 1/31/15 10 Final mix selection 0 days Mon 2/2/15 Mon 2/2/15 11 Reinforcing research 40 days Mon 10/13/1Fri 12/5/14 12 Reinforcement testing 60 days Mon 10/20/1Fri 1/9/15 13 Set up tent 1 day Sun 11/2/14 Sun 11/2/14 14 Cut sections 10 days Sun 11/23/14Thu 12/4/14 15 Frame mold 15 days Sat 1/3/15 Thu 1/22/15 16 Aluminum flashing 5 days Fri 1/23/15 Thu 1/29/15 17 Pour day 1 day Sun 2/8/15 Sun 2/8/15 18 Cure time 21 days Mon 2/9/15 Mon 3/9/15 19 Form removal 1 day Tue 3/10/15 Tue 3/10/15 20 Cross section construction 5 days Wed 3/11/15Tue 3/17/15 21 Sanding 2 days Wed 3/11/15Thu 3/12/15 22 Stain/Seal Canoe 5 days Fri 3/13/15 Thu 3/19/15 23 Brainstorm on Canoe theme 60 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 12/1/14 24 Compose rough draft paper 20 days Mon 11/10/1Fri 12/5/14 25 Finalized design paper 0 days Mon 12/8/14Mon 12/8/14 26 Presentation compilation 20 days Sun 2/8/15 Thu 3/5/15 27 Presentation practice 10 days Fri 3/6/15 Thu 3/19/15 28 Paddling practice 52 days Sun 1/4/15 Sun 3/15/15 29 Southeast Student Conference 3 days Thu 3/19/15 Sun 3/22/15 g 24, '14 Sep 14, '14 Oct 5, '14 Oct 26, '14 Nov 16, '14 Dec 7, '14 Dec 28, '14 Jan 18, '15 Feb 8, '15 Mar 1, '15 Mar 22, '15 Apr 12, '15 May 3, '15 May 24, '15 Jun 14, '15 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T 9/9 9/23 12/8 2/2 Task Project Summary Manual Task Start-only Deadline Project: Concrete Canoe Date: Sun 3/1/15 Split Milestone Inactive Task Inactive Milestone Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Finish-only External Tasks Progress Manual Progress Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary External Milestone Page 1
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT -9 4 1 " OVERALL HEIGHT. -6" PLY. HEIGHT -6 4 1 " 2X4 HEIGHT 1 4 " GAP 2'-10 2 1 " BEAM WIDTH 3' PLY. WIDTH 20' OVERALL BOAT LENGTH -4" BOW -2" STERN 4 S-1.0 SCALE OVERALL CANOE ELEVATION 1 1/2" = -0" S-1.0 SCALE TYPICAL CANOE SECTIONS 1/2" = -0" -2" -4" PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT 20'-1 2 1 " FRAME LENGTH 20' BOAT LENGTH 5'-0 3 4 " BEAM LENGTH 10' BEAM LENGTH 5'-03 4 " BEAM LENGTH 20' OVERALL BOAT LENGTH 2' - 7" MAX. EXT. WIDTH 3'-5 2 1 " OVERALL WIDTH 2'-10 2 1 " PLY. WIDTH 2'-10 2 1 " BEAM WIDTH 6 W/ CANOE IN MOLD OVERALL MOLD PLAN S-1.0 SCALE 1/2" = -0" S-1.0 SCALE 3 TYPICAL MOLD SECTION 1" TYPICAL THICKNESS 5 OVERALL CANOE PLAN S-1.0 SCALE 1/2" = -0" S-1.0 SCALE 2 NOT USED 1/2" = -0" 1/2" = -0" PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
APPENDIX A-REFERENCES ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. C33-03, West Conshohocken PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. C39/C39M-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. C128-04a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. C136-06,West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. C138/C138M-01a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete. C979-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Mortar, and Grout. C989-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete. C1116-03. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2006). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. C136-06, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2010). Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). C78-10, West Conshohocken, PA. A-1
APPENDIX B-MIXTURE PROPORTIONS Mixture ID: Y D Design Batch Size (ft 3 ): 1 Design Proportions (Non SSD) Actual Batched Proportions Yielded Proportions Cementitious Materials CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 Fibers SG Amount (lb/yd 3 ) Volume (ft 3 ) Amount (lb) Volume (ft 3 ) Amount (lb/yd 3 ) Volume (ft 3 ) Portland Cement 3.15 266.76 1.357 9.88 0.050 281.70 1.433 GGBF Slag, Grade 120 2.90 533.52 2.948 19.76 0.109 563.40 3.113 Fly Ash 2.50 88.83 0.569 3.29 0.021 93.80 0.601 Total Cementitious Materials: 889.11 4.87 32.93 0.18 938.90 5.15 F1 Grace Strux Polypropelene Fibers 0.90 4.05 0.072 0.15 0.003 4.28 0.076 Aggregates A1 A2 Water W1 Poraver (0.5-1mm) Poraver (0.25-0.5mm) Total Fibers: 4.05 0.07 0.15 0.00 4.28 0.08 Abs : 0.25 Abs : 0.3 0.52 261.36 8.055 9.68 0.298 276.00 8.506 0.47 217.35 7.411 8.05 0.274 229.52 7.826 Total Aggregates: 478.71 15.47 17.73 0.57 505.52 16.33 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b) 167.80 2.689 6.21 0.100 177.19 2.840 W1a. Water from Admixtures 1.00 28.95 1.07 30.57 W1b. Additional Water 138.85 5.14 146.63 W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.00 130.55 4.84 137.86 Total Water (W1 + W2): 298.34 4.781 11.05 0.177 315.05 5.049 Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form S1 UGL Drylock Latex 1.00 0.49 0.008 0.02 0.000 0.51 0.01 Total Solids of Admixtures: 0.49 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.01 Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form) % Solids Dosage (fl oz/cwt) Water in Admixtur e (lb/yd 3 ) Amount (fl oz) Water in Admixtur e (lb) Dosage (fl oz/cwt) Water in Admixtur e (lb/yd 3 ) Ad1 Darex AEA 8.5 Ad2 Darex WRDA 60 9.6 Ad3 UGL Drylock Latex 8.6 lb/ga l lb/ga l lb/ga l 5.00 2.79 1.57 0.92 0.058 2.95 1.65 17.5 0 25.0 0 7.44 4.09 2.45 0.151 7.86 4.32 51.99 23.29 17.12 0.863 54.90 24.60 Water from Admixtures (W1a): 28.95 1.07 30.57 B- 1
APPENDIX B- MIXTURE PROPORTIONS Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.300 0.300 0.300 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.336 0.335 0.336 Slump, Slump Flow, in. 4.000 4.000 4.000 M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1670.70 61.88 1764.25 V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft 3 25.20 0.93 26.61 T Theorectical Density, lb/ft 3 = (M / V) 66.29 66.29 66.29 D Design Density, lb/ft 3 = (M / 27) 61.88 D Measured Density, lb/ft 3 65.340 65.340 A Y Ry Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] Yield, ft 3 = (M / D) Relative Yield = (Y / Y D) 6.66 1.44 1.44 27 1 27 0.947 B- 2
APPENDIX C-BILL OF MATERIALS Material Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Concrete Mix Portland Cement 29.64 lb $ 0.22 $ 6.52 GGBF Slag 59.28 lb $ 0.05 $ 2.96 Fly Ash 9.87 lb $ 0.10 $ 0.99 Poraver (0.5-1.0 mm) 29.04 lb $ 0.70 $ 20.33 Poraver (0.25-0.5 mm) 24.15 lb $ 0.70 $ 16.91 Polypropelene Fibers 0.15 lb $ 11.35 $ 1.70 UGL Drylock Latex 3.60 lb $ 4.36 $ 15.70 Darex AEA 0.39 lb $ 1.53 $ 0.60 Darex WRDA 60 0.72 lb $ 1.25 $ 0.90 Reinforcing Carbon Fiber Mesh 160.00 sf $ 3.00 $ 480.00 Ruredil X Mesh Gold 160.00 sf $ 5.23 $ 836.80 Construction Plywood 8 sheets $ 26.00 $ 208.00 Lumber (2x4 & 2x2) 300 lf $ 0.66 $ 198.00 Screws / Nails 5 box $ 4.64 $ 23.20 Safety Supplies 1 ls $ 129.99 $ 129.99 Tools & Equipment 1 ls $ 147.72 $ 147.72 Bondo 2 gal $ 23.99 $ 47.98 Sand Paper 80 sheets $ 0.12 $ 9.60 Angles 46 ls $ 1.00 $ 46.00 Sand Paper 40 sheets $ 0.12 $ 4.80 Stain 1 ls $ 39.99 $ 39.99 Sealer 1 ls $ 14.99 $ 14.99 Lettering 50 letters $ 1.16 $ 58.00 Total Cost of Production $ 2311.41 C- 1