Table of contents Executive summary... i Analysis... 1 Development and Testing... 2 Project Management and Construction... 4 Innovations and Sustainability... 7 Organization Chart... 8 Project Schedule... 9 Mold Design Drawing... 10 Appendix A References... A1 Appendix B Mixture Proportions... B1 Appendix C Gradation Curves and Tables C1 Dimensions of the canoe Reinforcements Length 20 Type Material Width 31 3 / 16 Fiber Glass Mesh Depth 16 GlasGrid 8501 Thickness ½ Woven Carbon Rods Total Weight 190 lb Fiber Concrete Properties Use Structural Finish Color White-Gray Gray Density (lb/ft³) 56.50 56.50 Compressive Str. 14 days (psi) 2045 2016 Tensile Str. 14 days (psi) 261 189 Use Finish Finish Color Charcoal Black Density (lb/ft³) 56.68 57.43 Compressive Str. 14 days (psi) 2074 2161 Tensile Str. 14 days (psi) 190 203 Reinforced Concrete Properties Location Hull Gunwales Reinforcements Mesh Mesh + Rod Flexural Str. 14 days (psi) 1001 1291 Executive summary Since its creation in 1974, the École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS) has been shining amongst other engineering faculties, ranking third overall in Canada for admissions. Located in the heart of Downtown Montreal, the ÉTS is home to more than 25% of the engineering students in Quebec. Its reputation and popularity can be explained by its unique partnership with the business world and industry leaders. The curriculum at the ÉTS is based on a cooperative teaching system and aims to develop new technologies for the industry. The evolution of the ÉTS Concrete Canoe Team is no doubt amazing and last year s results speak for themselves. Toutatis first won the Conference Championship for Upstate New-York for a second year in a row. Then, the team was crowned champion at the Canadian Championship for the first time since 1999. Finally, as hosts of the American National Competition, Toutatis team won a hard fought third place overall in front of all their fans. The team had also organized a competition that will be forever engraved in the minds of the competitors. In the end, the members of Toutatis were rewarded during the Gala Forces Avenir for all the hard work and perseverance they d poured into a project that encourages you to gain knowledge, to accomplish something as a team, to go beyond what you thought you were capable of and to develop social consciousness. This year, Vintage s objective is simple: take home the American National Championship with our canoe still in one piece. Our first priority was of course to analyze why Toutatis broke during the races in Montreal. The structural failure was attributed mainly to a conception error due to flawed testing methods. The team members responsible for the concrete mixture had to find a way to accurately test the flexion present in the canoe s walls. Their ingenuity resulted in the construction of a testing module with which we could test the concrete plates vertically instead of horizontally. As for the analysis, the new hull design imposed upon us was a real problem. The paddlers quickly understood they would have to adapt to a canoe that was much harder to steer, which required a practice canoe. Then, with the help deformation gauges, the team performed a structural analysis on a second canoe that mimicked Vintage s design to validate the correction factors, a first for the competition! As for construction, the methods remained relatively unchanged. A few improvements were brought for the aesthetics of the mold such as guides to ensure a constant finish. On another note, a waste disposal policy was set forth for the first time this year; the team adopted this policy to ensure the sustainability of the project and managed to save a few dollars by reusing materials too. These are just a few reasons why Vintage will be on a power play all throughout the competitions! i
Analysis Many important developments occurred during Toutatis analysis. Amongst others, the team validated the methods of analysis by comparing theory (finite element analysis) and practice (tests with deformation gauges). The tests showed that the results obtained with the computer simulation were sufficiently close to reality to be valid. Thanks to this conclusion, Vintage s structural analysis started off with a solid base. Even though the analysts had a head start, they decided to pull out all the stops. In order to better the method of analysis, they took the best ideas from last year and incorporated some new ones that allowed for some much more precise results. Once again, the CosmosWorks software was used to do the finite element analysis. First of all, the volume model was kept for an accurate representation of the hull s geometry. Then, keeping in mind the objective to obtain the most realistic results possible, the exterior water pressure on the hull was simulated according to Archimedes s theory of buoyancy. Thus, the pressure exerted by the water would increase with depth (see figure 1). Figure 1 : Pressure variation with depth As a first this year, the paddlers weights were simulated by applying limit conditions according to the principle of elastic foundations. In this type of simulation, the supports are replaced by a series of springs spread throughout their surface. This way, we obtain deformations of the canoe that are closer to reality, because this type of support is flexible (see figure 2). Using this type Figure 2 : The paddler supports with elastic foundations of limit condition has many advantages, as it allows us to stabilize the model without having to anchor any parts (ex: tips), which would alter the analysis results. While the team of analysts was working on certain aspects of the method of analysis, the team of concrete mixture designers adapted Toutatis mix to this year s new rules. This initial mixture s properties served for the first analysis. Those properties are a density of 56.19 lb/ft³, an elastic modulus of 1146 ksi, a Poisson s ratio of 0.2, a compressive strength of 1682 psi after 14 days and a tensile strength of 189 psi. During the analysis, three load cases were studied: the co-ed sprint (4 paddlers), men s slalom (3 paddlers) and the men s sprint (2 paddlers). The weight of each paddler was set to 165 lb. As for the men s slalom, two paddlers were positioned at the stern and one at the bow. The first analysis was a static simulation with no reinforcements. It yielded a maximum tensile stress of 145 psi under the paddlers (2 paddler load case). By multiplying this result by the dynamic factor of 1.5 which was established last year and by a security factor of 2.5, the tensile stress was brought up to 544 psi. This constraint would serve as design criterion for Vintage s structural concrete. 0,0 145 psi Figure 3 : Stress repartition in the hull During the different tests, the analysts noticed that highest stress points found by the software didn t necessarily represent the most critical parts of the canoe. As a matter of fact, one of the highest tensile stress points was on the outer side of the hull, right where the bottom of the canoe meets its sides. Indeed, once on the water, the sides of the canoe tend to want to fold inwards; 1
the inside of the canoe s hull then finds itself in compression while the outside is in tension. On the other hand, the tensile stress is present all throughout the gunwales (see figure 4). For that reason, the team suggested using reinforcement rods in the gunwales, without favoring the use of ribs. These reinforcements would imply a greater weight of the canoe which could be a nuisance for the paddlers during races. Figure 4 : Cross section detail of Figure 3 From here, the team took a look back at last year s events to try and pin point the reasons for Toutatis failure. Since static tests had already proven that the method of analysis was valid, the analysts began doubting the validity of their dynamic factor and security factor. At their request, a test canoe was built to the exact specifications of Vintage s materials and hull design. Now that the team had the final concrete mixture s properties and knew which reinforcements were going to be used, a second finite element analysis was done. Particular attention was paid to the gunwales, the area where the deformation gauges had been installed. This part of the canoe is easier to analyze since the stresses are mostly unidirectional. The gauges are also less likely to get wet during the tests, which could potentially alter the results. Once in the pool, the canoe was subjected to many different static and dynamic scenarios. Already aware of the critical load case, which is that of 2 paddlers, the team concentrated its efforts on it. The gauges in the middle recorded the biggest deformation. In the static scenarios, the stresses recorded were relatively similar to those obtained with the finite element analysis, around 116 psi. In the dynamic scenarios, the stress reached 170 psi. With these latest tests in mind, the dynamic factor was kept at 150 %. Finally, the team took a closer look at the safety factor. In order to do this, the canoe was submitted to extreme conditions which can hardly be simulated by software. The objective was to test the canoe until failure. Four paddlers managed to reach stresses up to 406 psi by positioning themselves in the tips. The most critical load case achieved was by holding the canoe upside down at the tips; a stress of 508 psi was recorded. In light of these results, a new safety factor of 450 % was chosen. With all factors considered, the objective for the tensile strength should have been of at least 653 psi instead of 544 psi. But, the fact that the properties of the composite concrete exceeded the criteria explains why the team never managed to break the canoe during the tests. Development and Testing In order for the canoe to survive the wear and tear of the competitions, Vintage s final concrete mixture would have to make up for last year s shortcomings. After giving it some thought, the team came to the conclusion that the concrete was not to blame; it was the structural reinforcements that would require some rethinking. The objectives stayed the same for the concrete, which means the team would need to develop a light concrete that would be strong enough to resist the beatings received in competition, while retaining its malleability and cohesion for casting. Based on these objectives and on the results of the analysis, the team set a few goals for themselves: a density of 56.20 lb/ft³, a tensile strength of 544 psi after 14 days of curing and a workability of at least 20 minutes. The team of designers based themselves on Toutatis final mixture and adapted it to this year s rules as a starting point. The proportion of cementitious materials and aggregates remained the same, respectively 720 and 415 lb/yd³. The amount of Portland cement used was reduced to 50% in order to respect the limitations (44% slag cement and 6% silica fume). And so the first mixture had a density of 56.19 lb/ft³ (ASTM C138) and a compressive strength of 1682 psi after 14 days for 2 x 4 cylinders (ASTM C39). 2
After, the team took a closer look at the aggregates proportions while ensuring they kept the same proportions for cementitious materials and admixtures. They immediately decided to swap out the cenospheres by recycled glass beads due to material availability and costs. The amount of recycled glass beads was brought up to 95% of the weight. In order to keep the density as low as possible, K1 microspheres were added in the mixture following the maximum dosage allowed (5% of the weight passing the No. 100 sieve). In total, 39 different mixtures were tested to obtain optimal proportions for the 3 different sized beads (from 0.25 to 2 mm). This optimization process allowed us to achieve a greater compressive strength (1871 psi after 14 days of curing), all the while retaining approximately the same density. In the same line of thought, the proportion of cementitious materials and their impact on the new aggregates proportions was also something the team had to take into consideration. The team kept the white cement for aesthetic purposes and the slag cement was chosen over the fly ash due to its better cohesion with the glass beads (tests performed for Toutatis). Only the insertion method of the silica fume was changed. Many compressive tests allowed the team to confirm that a latex containing 30% of silica fume, SikaCem 810 (see figure 5), yielded a more even distribution of the fume in the cement matrix, therefore making it more efficient. For the same amount of silica fume (6%), there was a 290 psi improvement when latex was favored over dry silica fume. Nonetheless, the team decided to reduce this quantity because the high density of this latex offered a less than stellar cohesion in the mixture. The final proportion of silica fume is 3% and the compressive strength remained relatively unchanged at 1842 psi. Figure 5 : Sikacem 810 Satisfied with the properties obtained from their concrete mixture so far, the team decided to move on to the amount of admixtures in the mixture. To start things off, last years super plasticizer, Glenium 7500, was replaced by Glenium 7700 because of its greater water reduction properties. Although it offered very little advantage in terms of strength, when the maximal dosage recommended by the supplier was used (15 fl oz/cwt), the concrete mixture was more malleable and easier to work with. Afterwards, the proportions of the different latexes were adjusted. The team has been using these latexes for many years to enhance the concretes strength in tension (ASTM C496) and to obtain a better cohesion within the mixture. The greater the latex contents in the mixture, the better the results. On the down side, the density of the concrete gets more imposing and there is a quicker hardening of the outer layer, therefore reducing the work time. After many tests with Gilmore needles (ASTM C266), a proportion of 13% by weight of the cementitious materials were deemed to be latex in order to obtain 20 minutes of work time. This result could only be obtained by mixing latexes with different solid contents. By now, Vintage s concrete had a tensile strength (ASTM C496) of 189 psi after 14 days, which did not meet the standards established. So, the team sought a secondary means of reinforcement. They found what they were looking for in polypropylene fibers. It is already widespread and therefore is available at very little cost. Tests were held with two fibers of varying sizes: Fibermesh 150 and Fibermesh 300. The Fibermesh 150, the finer of the two, helped prevent drying shrinkage, while the Fibermesh 300 would offer residual strength. It is important to note though that the larger the fiber, the more negative an impact it has on the cohesion of the concrete. The team decided to find an optimal amount of Fibermesh 300 to add to the mixture in order not to affect too greatly the cohesion. The proportion found was 2.8 lb/yd³. With the same objective in mind, a proportion of 1.7 lb/yd³ of Fibermesh 150 was added to the concrete as well. The fibers allowed the concrete to reach a new tensile strength of 232 psi after 14 days with a final density of 56.50 lb/ft³, a little bit over the objective but acceptable. The criteria being 544 psi for the tensile strength, a main reinforcement was needed. 3
As for the curing process of the final concrete mixture, the team based itself off the tests performed for the curing of Toutatis concrete. These tests aimed to determine an optimal curing time to allow the complete coalescence of the latex and the hydration of the cement. After many tensile strength tests, the team shaved 2 days off of Toutatis coalescence process since the amount of latex in Vintage is lesser than in Toutatis (13% instead of 16.5%). The new curing process goes as follows: 2 days of wet curing, 5 days of dry curing and 7 days in the humid chamber. This curing process allowed Vintage s concrete to obtain the final mechanical strength after 14 days of 2045 psi of compressive strength (ASTM C39) and 261 psi of tensile strength (ASTM C496). The team could now choose the reinforcements. Last year, during the 2008 NCCC, Toutatis mesh succumbed to the flexion in the gunwales. Interestingly, our test results indicated sufficient strength when compared to the analysis we had done. This put in doubt the testing methods used by the team. Last year, plates of composite concrete 12" x 6" x ½" (ASTM C78) were used horizontally to test the flexural strength (loading with 4 supports). It turns out this method does not take into consideration the repartition of the stresses throughout the gunwales. The team had to find a more representative testing method. In order to do this, the plates had to be tested vertically (see figure 6) until complete failure. On a homemade test bench, many vertical supports were fixed to the extremities and in the center of an aluminum channel. These modifications would help stabilize the concrete plate during loadings. Once the test bench was ready and had received its seal of approval by the team, testing began once more for flexural strength while still following the ASTM C78 standard (loading with 4 supports). In total, 3 different meshes were tested with the help of composite concrete plates (30" x 10" x ½"), 2 fiberglass meshes and 1 basalt fiber mesh. The meshes were placed in the middle of the plate between 2 evenly thick layers of concrete. For the construction of the canoe, the GlasGrid fiberglass mesh was chosen (see table 1) due to its better strengths. Figure 6 : Test benches to determine flexural strength for Toutatis (left) and Vintage (right) With their new mesh in hand, the team looked into the possibility of incorporating rods in the gunwales in order to obtain a better flexural strength, as suggested by the analysts. Aluminum rods used for Tomahawk and carbon rods were tested, all 1 / 8 diameter. Thanks to their unique texture, the woven carbon fiber rods offered a much better adhesion, which had a considerable impact on the flexural strength (see table 1). The flexural strength finally overcame the conception criterion, which was 544 psi. With all the objectives achieved, Vintage was assured to resist through the hardships of the competitions. Table 1 : Flexural strength (ASTM C78) after 14 days Type of mesh Strength Basalt Fiber (POA 69.28 %) JB Martin 841 psi Fiberglass (POA 36,02 %) Adex Intermediate Reinforcing Mesh 885 psi Fiberglass (POA 61,18 %) GlasGrid 8501 1001 psi Type of rod (with GlasGrid mesh) Strength Aluminum 1117 psi Carbon fiber 1102 psi Woven carbon fiber 1291 psi Project Management and Construction The ETS concrete canoe team started with the annual Start Up meeting. It s during this period that the team leaders make a quick recapitulation of last year s events while indentifying the highs and lows. Having achieved unprecedented success last year, the team decided to use the same management methods by naming one team member responsible for each part of the project. These members thus formed the management team for Vintage, they called all the shots. Together, they established standards to reach and schedules for each part of the project. 4
Since certain members of the team are on their senior year, many of their responsibilities were delegated to second year students. This initiative was taken in order to ensure a smooth transition process next year when the reigns are handed to a new captain. And so the management team was mostly composed of second year team members who could benefit from the experience and wisdom of the seniors. In September, the team had its annual recruitment meeting. Since there were already 17 returning members from Toutatis, only 11 people were recruited. Through the course of the meeting, the year s objectives and tasks for each category of the project were laid out. This way, everyone would have the same goals and would put in all the expectations for workloads, deadlines and budget. During this meeting, everyone was also informed of the financial implications. This year, every team member was asked to approach new sponsors to gather a minimum of 500 dollars (materials or funds). On top of that, they had to participate in every fundraising activity organized by the team. These demands were established with the new treasurer s preliminary budget in mind. This budget was established with a few things in mind: the expenses and revenues of Toutatis, the management team s experience and the budget estimates for Vintage, which included the possibility of travelling by plane. (see figure 7). NCCC 16 200 $ CNCCC 5 525$ Up NY 7 625 $ Administration - 1,210$ Concrete & Reinfor. - 4,035$ Construction - 4,355$ Aesthetics - 2,200$ Training - 2,060$ Tech. presentation - 4,100$ Figure 7 : Budgeted funds (total of 47,310$) The team s success did not only depend of the acquisition of these sponsors, but also on the respect of the schedule established by the management team. While still basing themselves on the team s experience, a list was compiled of all the things that could considerably delay the project. Then, a few dates and milestones were set to overcome these events. The critical path goes as follows: Finishing the mold for the test canoe, choice of the final concrete mixture, assembling the test canoe, finishing the mold for Vintage, assembling Vintage, finish sanding, applying dyes and sealer. In order to make sure the schedule was respected, weekly meetings were held to follow up on the progress so far. If a task on the critical path showed any signs of delay, more manpower was attributed to the task to move it forward. Again this year, each member of the management team would tell the captain how many work hours were put in by his team during the previous week. Over 3 220 hours have been invested to accomplish this project (see figure 8). We can easily see that the vast majority of the hours are spent in construction time since this year we built one fiberglass canoe and 2 concrete canoes. 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Admin. Estimated Actual Hull Design Analysis R & D Construction Academics Figure 8 : Man hours Since the canoe s design was imposed upon us, the team had no information about this type of hull. As far back as the data base goes, no previous canoe built by the ETS ever had this design. The decision was taken at the very beginning of the year by the management team to build a fiberglass canoe for the paddlers to practice in as soon as possible. This step also allowed some of the newer team members to get some hands on experience by making their first mold. 5
As for the concrete canoe, the team favored a male mold. This choice was driven by the results of the construction of Toutatis and the many advantages it conferred: reduction of costs and construction time among others. 154 sections were cut out of extruded polystyrene 1.5 thick to create the molds structure. This material was used because it s affordable, rigid, light weight, easy to work with and to reuse. Once the pieces were assembled and sanded, they were covered with dry wall compound in order to obtain a smoother finish. This year, gauges were built to ensure the mold would respect the design every 12. If the gauge did not hug the mold perfectly, further sanding was done or more plaster was added. Just like Toutatis, the mold had inserts incorporated in the gunwales. Due to last year s irregularities in the inserts, the team decided to add rubber gauges. This not only improved upon the aesthetics, but also dramatically reduced the time required to sand these parts of the canoe. Once the mold was to the team s liking, it was covered with a coating of paint and wax to facilitate its removal. In order to cut construction time during casting, the captain attributed tasks to the 27 team members to optimize their efficiency. Both canoes were built in the same fashion. Two layers of structural concrete were applied by hand; the first layer is 7/32 thick and the second one is 1/4 thick. These 2 layers are separated only by the fiberglass mesh (1/32 ) and the rods in the middle of the gunwales (see figure 9). Figure 9 : Placement of concrete During the casting, team members who had to place the concrete were always equipped with their gauges to ensure the thickness was respected. The team captain and the team member responsible for construction paid particular attention to detail concerning the quality of the work done by everyone placing concrete, ensuring they were all following the pace. On the other hand, the team member responsible for the concrete mixture took many samples to guaranty a steady density, hardening time, mixing time and to make test cylinders. Once the 14 day curing process was over, the exterior sanding began. To speed things up and to ensure the final product was representative of the design, the team used sanding blocs 24 long. Once again, gauges were used every 12 to be Figure 10: Gauges sure the design was respected (see figure 10). Once the outside of the canoe was smooth, the team then removed the mold. The extruded polystyrene was taken out and kept for the construction of the second mold, the canoe supports and for the cutaway section. The first canoe s construction ended with interior sanding before tests were held in a basin. For the second canoe, the construction continued beyond this point with the insertion of colored concrete in the depressions previously created by the gauges put on the mold. Afterward, vinyl stencils were put on the canoe before applying the stain with a paint gun. The construction process was capped off by applying a sealer and sanding it. As for the health and security of the team members, the ETS s students have a considerable advantage. That s because all of the team members have a college technical degree and an attestation from the ASP Construction (Association Paritaire pour la Santé et Sécurité du Travail du Secteur de la Construction Direct translation: Joint Association for Health and Safety at Work in the Construction Industry). They have all received training concerning their health and safety in factories, on construction sites and about dangerous materials. On top of that, the team can count on the help from one of its own members with a degree in Environment, Hygiene and Safety at Work. This person was tasked with being a health and safety officer; supplying safety materials (gloves, glasses, masks, etc.), stocking materials (dangerous or not), demonstrating safe work methods and establishing the waste management policy. 6
Innovations and Sustainability There was no secret behind Toutatis success last year. The team was on the cutting edge of technology thanks to some radical changes, like the use of deformation gauges, the research on latex coalescence and new finishing methods. In order to prove the ETS still had its place amongst the best, the team once again had to innovate in all aspects of the project. During meetings, the team decided to bet big on the analysis portion of the project. This was another big step forward by a concrete canoe team. The team decided to do real-time deformation tests on Vintage s actual hull design. The task implies much more than simple tests, since the team had to build an additional concrete canoe! This canoe was put through its paces by the paddlers. This way, the analysts could validate and calibrate their simulations by finite element analysis. In order to create the best concrete mixture and to chose the proper reinforcements, the team innovated greatly by testing the concrete s flexural strength in a way that represented the efforts induced in the gunwales. In order to do this, a test bench was built allowing the team to test concrete plates vertically while following the ASTM C78 standard. Thanks to this, the designers could make a better choice when it came to the hull and gunwales reinforcements to ensure the canoe would survive the competitions. As for construction process, great attention was paid to the molds precision. On top of the gunwales gauges, sections were cut to check the dimensions every 12. Gauges were also used to verify the exterior sanding of the canoe. Thanks to these little tricks, Vintage has better lines than Toutatis ever had! It s also very important to mention the hard work accomplished by the management team. On top of their regular work load, they had to plan and supervise the construction of 2 additional canoes: the fiberglass canoe for the paddlers and the test canoe for the team of analysts. Thanks to their professionalism, no major delay was noted. Another innovation brought forth by the test was the integration of sustainable development with the help of a waste management policy. The team privileged the 3Rs technique (reduce, reuse and recycle) in order to reduce costs of the project. The team s health and safety officer first set up a sorting system with different recycling bins to separate wood, metal, plastic, polystyrene, organics and other wastes (third R). These bins were used all throughout the project, which made reusing materials a lot easier (second R). Even the extra concrete produced during tests and construction was used to create floating blocks for future use. A great example of how the team reused materials is the disassembly of last year s presentation stand. In term of materials, Toutatis stand cost more than 700 $. The material was still in great shape and was reused for the new stand, thus reducing wastes and costs (first R) down to only 160 $. Same goes for the molds. Bigger sections of polystyrene were cut into smaller ones for the construction of the next mold. The last mold was also transformed into supports for the canoe. Even the smallest screw or nail was reused when possible. The team also enforced a clean up and maintenance policy after ever work period. Taking good care of your tools and of your work area greatly improves their useful life. For example, a coat of antirust paint was applied to the work table before it was put in the humid chamber. All these innovations allowed the team to save roughly 1,990 $ by not having to buy new tools, hardware and new materials (see table 2). Table 2 : Comparison of the estimated and actual budgets Resources Estimated Actual Wood 1,000$ 430$ Polystyrene 1,600$ 880$ Metals 500$ 500$ Hardware 620$ 470$ Tools 1,250$ 350$ Maintenance 100$ 450$ Total 5,070$ 3,080$ 7
Organization Chart 8
Project Schedule 9
Mold Design Drawing 10
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-04a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). C78-02, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates. C125-03, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. C127-04, 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. C136-05, 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 Portland Cement. C150-04ae1,West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement. C230/C230M-03, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Hydraulic-Cement Paste by Gillmore Needles. C266-04, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson s Ratio of Concrete in Compression. C469-04, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. C494/C494M-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. C496/C496M-04, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Test Method for Drying Shrinkage of Mortar Containing Hydraulic Cement. C596-01, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. C618-03, West Conshohocken, PA. A1
ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete. C979-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2006). Standard Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars. C989-06. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete. C1116-03, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures. C1240-04, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and Sealing Concrete.. C1315-03, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). Standard Specification for Latex and Powder Modifiers for Hydraulic Cement Concrete and Mortar. C1438-99e1. West Conshohocken, PA. École de technologie supérieure, Concrete canoe (2007). Tomahawk. NCCC Design Paper, École de technologie supérieure, Montréal, Québec. École de technologie supérieure, Concrete canoe (2008). Toutatis. NCCC Design Paper, École de technologie supérieure, Montréal, Québec. NCCC Rules (2009). 2009 ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition Rules and Regulations. < http://content.asce.org/files/pdf/2009ncccrulesandregulations.pdf > Ramachandran, V.S. (1984). Concrete Admixtures Handbook : Properties, Science and Technology. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. Vlasov, V.Z. (1966). Beams, plates and shells on elastic foundations. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, Israel. A2
Appendix B Mixture Proportions Table B.1 : Summary of Mixture Proportions Structural Concrete Mixture Proportions Batched Yielded Batch Size (ft³): 0.105 as Designed Proportions Proportions Cementitious Materials Specific Volume Volume Volume Gravity* (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (ft³) 1. White Portland Cement Type: GU 3.030 369.58 1.955 1.43 0.008 369.96 1.957 2. Silica Fume (Sikacem 810 ) 2.200 22.17 0.162 0.09 0.001 22.20 0.162 3. Slag Cement 2.600 347.40 2.141 1.35 0.008 347.76 2.143 Total of All Cementitious Materials 739.15 4.257 2.87 0.017 739.91 4.262 Fibers 1. Fibermesh 150 0.910 1.71 0.030 0.01 0.000 1.71 0.030 2. Fibermesh 300 0.910 2.84 0.050 0.01 0.000 2.85 0.050 Total of All Fibers 4.55 0.080 0.02 0.000 4.55 0.080 Aggregates 1. Microspheres K1 Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.138 19.90 2.311 0.08 0.009 19.92 2.313 2. Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.640 55.72 1.395 0.22 0.005 55.78 1.397 3. Poraver 0.5-1 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.520 175.12 5.397 0.68 0.021 175.30 5.403 4. Poraver 1-2 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.440 147.26 5.364 0.57 0.021 147.41 5.369 Total of All Aggregates 398.01 14.467 1.54 0.056 398.42 14.482 Water Batched Water 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absorbed water from All Aggregates 1.000-7.56-0.121-0.03-0.000-7.57-0.121 Total Water from All Admixtures 1.000 293.97 4.710 1.14 0.018 294.27 4.714 Total Water 286.41 4.588 1.11 0.018 286.70 4.593 Solids Content of Latex Modifiers 1. Albitol Concentrate 1.075 39.66 0.591 0.15 0.002 39.70 0.592 2. Sika Latex R 1.090 34.54 0.508 0.13 0.002 34.58 0.509 3. Sikacem 810 (latex only) 1.050 22.17 0.338 0.09 0.001 22.20 0.339 Total Latex 96.37 1.438 0.37 0.006 96.47 1.439 Admixtures % Solids (fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt) 1. Glenium 7700 Wt./gal* : 8.880 25.00 14.10 5.42 0.43 0.02 14.10 5.42 2. Albitol Concentrate Wt./gal* : 8.621 45.00 177.12 48.47 5.24 0.19 177.12 48.52 3. Sika Latex R Wt./gal* : 8.454 15.00 471.93 195.73 13.69 0.76 471.93 195.94 4. Sikacem 810 Wt./gal* : 10.958 50.00 140.23 44.35 5.27 0.17 140.23 44.39 5. Black pigments Specific Gravity* : 4.600 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 Flow (flow table), % 40 38 38 Air Content, % 8.1 8.6 8.6 Density (Unit Weight), lb/ft³ 56.81 56.50 56.50 Gravimetric Air Content, % 8.6 Yield, ft³ 27.00 0.105 27.00 Abs = Absorption; MC = Batched moisture * Specific gravity provided were evaluated by team Water content of admixture Silica Fume from Sikacem 810 Oven dry (non-ssd) B1
Table B.2 : Summary of Mixture Proportions Gray Concrete Mixture Proportions Batched Yielded Batch Size (ft³): 0.104 as Designed Proportions Proportions Cementitious Materials Specific Volume Volume Volume Gravity* (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (ft³) 1. White Portland Cement Type: GU 3.030 372.02 1.968 1.43 0.008 370.66 1.960 2. Silica Fume (Sikacem 810 ) 2.200 22.32 0.163 0.09 0.001 22.24 0.162 3. Slag Cement 2.600 349.70 2.155 1.35 0.008 348.42 2.148 Total of All Cementitious Materials 744.04 4.286 2.87 0.017 741.33 4.270 Fibers 1. Fibermesh 150 0.910 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Fibermesh 300 0.910 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total of All Fibers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggregates 1. Microspheres K1 Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.138 20.03 2.326 0.08 0.009 19.96 2.318 2. Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.640 56.09 1.404 0.22 0.005 55.88 1.399 3. Poraver 0.5-1 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.520 176.28 5.433 0.68 0.021 175.64 5.413 4. Poraver 1-2 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.440 148.24 5.399 0.57 0.021 147.70 5.379 Total of All Aggregates 400.64 14.562 1.54 0.056 399.18 14.509 Water Batched Water 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absorbed water from All Aggregates 1.000-7.61-0.122-0.03-0.000-7.58-0.122 Total Water from All Admixtures 1.000 295.91 4.741 1.14 0.018 294.83 4.723 Total Water 288.30 4.619 1.11 0.018 287.25 4.602 Solids Content of Latex Modifiers 1. Albitol Concentrate 1.075 39.92 0.595 0.15 0.002 39.78 0.593 2. Sika Latex R 1.090 34.77 0.511 0.13 0.002 34.64 0.509 3. Sikacem 810 (latex only) 1.050 22.32 0.341 0.09 0.001 22.24 0.339 Total Latex 97.01 1.447 0.37 0.006 96.66 1.442 Admixtures % Solids (fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt) 1. Glenium 7700 Wt./gal* : 8.880 25,00 14.10 5.45 0.43 0.02 14.10 5.43 2. Albitol Concentrate Wt./gal* : 8.621 45,00 177.12 48.79 5.24 0.19 177.12 48.61 3. Sika Latex R Wt./gal* : 8.454 15,00 471.93 197.03 13.69 0.76 471.93 196.31 4. Sikacem 810 Wt./gal* : 10.958 50,00 140.23 44.64 5.27 0.17 140.23 44.48 5. Black pigments Specific Gravity* : 4.600 100,00 1.28 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.28 0.00 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 Flow (flow table), % 50 54 54 Air Content, % 8.2 8.7 8.7 Density (Unit Weight), lb/ft³ 56.81 56.50 56.50 Gravimetric Air Content, % 8.7 Yield, ft³ 27.00 0.104 27.00 Abs = Absorption; MC = Batched moisture * Specific gravity provided were evaluated by team Water content of admixture Silica Fume from Sikacem 810 Oven dry (non-ssd) B2
Table B.3 : Summary of Mixture Proportions Charcoal Concrete Mixture Proportions Batched Yielded Batch Size (ft³): 0.104 as Designed Proportions Proportions Cementitious Materials Specific Volume Volume Volume Gravity* (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (ft³) 1. White Portland Cement Type: GU 3.030 370.65 1.960 1.43 0.008 370.37 1.959 2. Silica Fume (Sikacem 810 ) 2.200 22.24 0.162 0.09 0.001 22.22 0.162 3. Slag Cement 2.600 348.41 2.147 1.35 0.008 348.15 2.146 Total of All Cementitious Materials 741.29 4.270 2.87 0.017 740.74 4.267 Fibers 1. Fibermesh 150 0.910 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Fibermesh 300 0.910 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total of All Fibers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggregates 1. Microspheres K1 Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.138 19.96 2.318 0.08 0.009 19.94 2.316 2. Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.640 55.88 1.399 0.22 0.005 55.84 1.398 3. Poraver 0.5-1 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.520 175.63 5.413 0.68 0.021 175.50 5.409 4. Poraver 1-2 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.440 147.69 5.379 0.57 0.021 147.58 5.375 Total of All Aggregates 399.16 14.509 1.54 0.056 398.86 14.498 Water Batched Water 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absorbed water from All Aggregates 1.000-7.58-0.121-0.03-0.000-7.58-0.121 Total Water from All Admixtures 1.000 294.82 4.723 1.14 0.018 294.60 4.720 Total Water 287.24 4.602 1.11 0.018 287.02 4.598 Solids Content of Latex Modifiers 1. Albitol Concentrate 1.075 39.77 0.593 0.15 0.002 39.74 0.592 2. Sika Latex R 1.090 34.64 0.509 0.13 0.002 34.62 0.509 3. Sikacem 810 (latex only) 1.050 22.24 0.339 0.09 0.001 22.22 0.339 Total Latex 96.65 1.442 0.37 0.006 96.58 1.441 Admixtures % Solids (fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt) 1. Glenium 7700 Wt./gal* : 8.880 25,00 14.10 5.43 0.43 0.02 14.10 5.43 2. Albitol Concentrate Wt./gal* : 8.621 45,00 177.12 48.61 5.24 0.19 177.12 48.58 3. Sika Latex R Wt./gal* : 8.454 15,00 471.93 196.30 13.69 0.76 471.93 196.15 4. Sikacem 810 Wt./gal* : 10.958 50,00 140.23 44.48 5.27 0.17 140.23 44.44 5. Black pigments Specific Gravity* : 4.600 100,00 3.85 0.00 0.11 0.00 3.85 0.00 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 Flow (flow table), % 50 54 54 Air Content, % 8.0 8.7 8.7 Density (Unit Weight), lb/ft³ 57.12 56.68 56.68 Gravimetric Air Content, % 8.7 Yield, ft³ 27.00 0.104 27.00 Abs = Absorption; MC = Batched moisture * Specific gravity provided were evaluated by team Water content of admixture Silica Fume from Sikacem 810 Oven dry (non-ssd) B3
Table B.4 : Summary of Mixture Proportions Black Concrete Mixture Proportions Batched Yielded Batch Size (ft³): 0.105 as Designed Proportions Proportions Cementitious Materials Specific Volume Volume Volume Gravity* (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (ft³) 1. White Portland Cement Type: GU 3.030 368.56 1.949 1.43 0.008 369.04 1.952 2. Silica Fume (Sikacem 810 ) 2.200 22.11 0.161 0.09 0.001 22.14 0.161 3. Slag Cement 2.600 346.45 2.135 1.35 0.008 346.90 2.138 Total of All Cementitious Materials 737.13 4.246 2.87 0.017 738.08 4.251 Fibers 1. Fibermesh 150 0.910 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 2. Fibermesh 300 0.910 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 Total of All Fibers 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 Aggregates 1. Microspheres K1 Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.138 19.85 2.305 0.08 0.009 19.87 2.308 2. Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.640 55.57 1.391 0.22 0.005 55.64 1.393 3. Poraver 0.5-1 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.520 174.64 5.382 0.68 0.021 174.87 5.389 4. Poraver 1-2 mm Abs: 2%; MC: 0% 0.440 146.86 5.349 0.57 0.021 147.05 5.356 Total of All Aggregates 396.91 14.427 1.54 0.056 397.43 14.446 Water Batched Water 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absorbed water from All Aggregates 1.000-7.54-0.121-0.03-0.000-7.55-0.121 Total Water from All Admixtures 1.000 293.16 4.697 1.14 0.018 293.54 4.703 Total Water 285.62 4.576 1.11 0.018 285.99 4.582 Solids Content of Latex Modifiers 1. Albitol Concentrate 1.075 39.55 0.589 0.15 0.002 39.60 0.590 2. Sika Latex R 1.090 34.45 0.507 0.13 0.002 34.49 0.507 3. Sikacem 810 (latex only) 1.050 22.11 0.338 0.09 0.001 22.14 0.338 Total Latex 96.11 1.434 0.37 0.006 96.23 1.435 Admixtures % Solids (fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt) 1. Glenium 7700 Wt./gal* : 8.880 25,00 14.10 5.40 0.43 0.02 14.10 5.41 2. Albitol Concentrate Wt./gal* : 8.621 45,00 177.12 48.34 5.24 0.19 177.12 48.40 3. Sika Latex R Wt./gal* : 8.454 15,00 471.93 195.20 13.69 0.76 471.93 195.45 4. Sikacem 810 Wt./gal* : 10.958 50,00 140.23 44.23 5.27 0.17 140.23 44.28 5. Black pigments Specific Gravity* : 4.600 100,00 15.39 0.00 0.44 0.00 15.39 0.00 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 Flow (flow table), % 50 54 54 Air Content, % 8.2 8.7 8.7 Density (Unit Weight), lb/ft³ 57.75 57.43 57.43 Gravimetric Air Content, % 8.7 Yield, ft³ 27.00 0.105 27.00 Abs = Absorption; MC = Batched moisture * Specific gravity provided were evaluated by team Water content of admixture Silica Fume from Sikacem 810 Oven dry (non-ssd) B4
Appendix C Gradation Curves and Tables Aggregate : Microspheres Sample Weight : 10 g Specific Gravity : 0.138 Fineness Modulus : 0.01 Table C.1 : Aggregate Gradation Table Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%) 3/8 inch 9.50 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 4 4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 8 2.36 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 16 1.18 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 30 0.60 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 50 0.30 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 100 0.15 0.0 0.0 99.0 No. 200 0.08 0.1 0.1 90.0 Table C.2 : Aggregate Gradation Table Aggregate : Sieved recycled glass beads Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Sample Weight : 135.0g Specific Gravity : 0.64 Fineness Modulus : 1.78 Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%) 3/8 inch 9.50 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 4 4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 8 2.36 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 16 1.18 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 30 0.60 0.7 0.7 99.5 No. 50 0.30 104.2 104.9 22.3 No. 100 0.15 30.1 135.0 0.0 No. 200 0.08 0.0 135.0 0.0 C1
Table C.3 : Aggregate Gradation Table Aggregate : Sieved recycled glass beads Poraver 0.5-1 mm Sample Weight : 190.2 g Specific Gravity : 0.52 Fineness Modulus : 2.67 Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%) 3/8 inch 9.50 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 4 4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 8 2.36 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 16 1.18 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 30 0.60 128.1 128.1 32.6 No. 50 0.30 62.1 190.2 0.0 No. 100 0.15 0.0 190.2 0.0 No. 200 0.08 0.0 190.2 0.0 Table C.4 : Aggregate Gradation Table Aggregate : Sieved recycled glass beads Poraver 1-2 mm Sample Weight : 131.9 g Specific Gravity : 0.44 Fineness Modulus : 3.49 Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%) 3/8 inch 9.50 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 4 4.75 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 8 2.36 0.0 0.0 100.0 No. 16 1.18 65.4 65.4 50.4 No. 30 0.60 66.0 131.4 0.4 No. 50 0.30 0.5 131.9 0.0 No. 100 0.15 0.0 131.9 0.0 No. 200 0.08 0.0 131.9 0.0 C2
Aggregate : Composite blend Fineness Modulus : 2.72 Table C.5 : Aggregate Gradation Table Percent Finer (%) Sieve Microsphères Poraver 0,25-0,5 mm Poraver 0,5-1 mm Poraver 1-2 mm Mélange composite 3/8 inch 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 No. 4 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 No. 8 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 No. 16 100.0 100.0 100 50.4 81.7 No. 30 100.0 99.5 32.6 0.4 33.4 No. 50 100.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 8.1 No. 100 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 No. 200 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 Ratio (%) 5 14 44 37 100 Figure C.1 : Gradation Curves 90 Microspheres Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Poraver 0.5-1 mm Poraver 1-2 mm Composite Blend 0,08 0,15 0,30 0,60 1,18 2,36 4,75 9,5 Diameter (mm) Percent Finer by weight (%) 70 50 30 10-10 C3