Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moe Moe Manoweb2.utc.edu/~qvp171/2015 Concrete...

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moe Moe Mano

i


i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Appendices

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

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

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

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

List of Figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lists of Tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ii

Executive Summary

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical

University or “The Harvard of the Sky” is

located in sunny Daytona Beach, six miles

away from the beach. Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University is the world's

oldest, largest, and most prestigious

university specializing in aviation and

aerospace. It is the only fully accredited,

aviation-oriented university in the world.

Founded in 1925 in Cincinnati Ohio,

Embry-Riddle has moved from Cincinnati to

Miami then finally to Daytona Beach in

1965. Now 50 years later, Embry-Riddle

has over 30,000 students at each of its two

main campuses, Daytona Beach, Florida,

and Prescott, Arizona, and 150 Worldwide

Campuses located in the United States,

Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. On our

campus in Daytona Beach, the most

beautiful sunsets occur over our flight line.

Inspired by the beautiful sunsets, the

aesthetics lead chose a Hawaiian theme for

this year’s canoe.

Housed in the College of

Engineering is the Civil Engineering

Department. The Civil Engineering

Department is one of the smallest

engineering departments on campus and

because of that, only three other concrete

canoes have been made and none of them

have ever won in a conference. Being at an

aviation oriented school, past senior design

projects have been concrete airplanes or

concrete rockets. This year, however, five

intelligent individuals came together and

made the concrete canoe their senior project.

All of the five students designing and

building the canoe had a little bit of

experience with the concrete canoe

competition. The Project Manager, Mix

Design Lead and Construction Lead were all

leaders for the concrete canoe team last year

that produced Miracle. Still being new to

the competition, having little resources and a

very tight budget, the senior design team had

an uphill battle ahead of them. Knowing the

mix design from Miracle was not a

competitive mix, the materials lead used

new, innovative and sustainable material to

design a mix that could compete with the

best schools in the conference. Utilizing

what they have learned from last year’s

conference in Tampa, Florida and the

knowledge they accumulated from other

schools at the conference, Moe Moe Mano

was born. At 19’1” and 200 pounds, this is

the longest, lightest and most impressive

canoe to ever come out of Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University.

“Moe Moe Mano” Design Specifications

Weight (estimated) 200 lbs

Length 19’1”

Max Width 33”

Hull Thickness 0.5 inches

Color Gray and Blue

Reinforcement HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in.

x 25 ft. Table 1: Moe Moe Mano's Specifications

“Moe Moe Mano” Design Mix Properties

Compressive Strength (28

days)

2,288 psi

Tensile Strength (7 days) 197 psi

Dry Unit Weight 68 pcf

Wet Unit Weight 70 pcf Table 2: Concrete Mix Design Properties

Embry-Riddle Aeronautic al University Moe Moe Mano

Project Management

This year, the Concrete Canoe was

chosen for the Civil Engineering senior

design project. The team leaders were

chosen from the most experienced and

brightest students in the department. In

August, the project manager, structures lead,

aesthetics lead, mix design lead and

construction lead were chosen based on

which area they excelled in and their

previous experience and skills. In early

September, a rough draft schedule was made

to provide a base line of what needed to be

accomplished. One thing was missing from

the rough draft schedule though: the little

experience and knowledge of the concrete

canoe competition. There were major

delays in some components of choosing a

mix design and constructing the mold

because setbacks were not included in the

schedule.

One of the most important processes

to the project management of designing a

canoe is keeping the cost of production low.

Our senior design class was never given a

budget, but we were told that the cost of

building Moe Moe Mano needed to be low.

In order to keep the cost down, half the

materials used were found in our Materials

Lab at Embry-Riddle. A wooden mold was

also used instead of a foam mold, which cut

the cost by $2000.

Using the rough draft schedule, a

critical path was determined. The critical

path included completion of the following:

mix design, AutoCAD drawing, construction

of the mold and casting day. With the

original schedule, there was an allowed float

of one week. With the completion of the

schedule, major milestones were also

selected. Below is a table of the major

milestones for Moe Moe Mano.

Table 3: Major Milestones for Moe Moe Mano

Below is a chart of how many man

hours it took to design and build Moe Moe

Mano, between the five team leaders.

Figure 1: Total Man Hours dedicated to Moe Moe

Mano from the five team leaders

Figure 2: Total Expenses for Moe Moe Mano

In order to maintain safety at all

times in the lab, safety presentations were

given during ASCE meetings.

200

96321

58 40

Total Project Man Hours

Total Man Hours Research

Mix Design/Testing Construction

Analysis/AutoCAD Design Paper

$215.76

$943.08

$531.77

Moe Moe Mano Expenses

Canoe Mold Tools Mix Materials

Major Milestones Proposed Actual

Hull Design Selection 9/26/2014 9/26/2014

Material Design and Testing 12/10/2014 1/16/2015

Structural Analysis

Completion 12/1/2014 12/1/2014

Mold Construction

Completion 1/12/2015 2/14/2015

Casting Day 1/12/2015 2/15/2015

Canoe Completion 3/11/2015 3/17/2015

1


Organization Chart

Structures Lead

Liam Goodall – Senior

Participation in competition: 2 years

Registered Participant: 0 years

Researched hull design, designed

canoe, completed all structures hand

calculations

Construction Lead

Mohammed Qahwaji – Senior



Researched best options to construct

the mold, constructed the entire

mold, in charge of choosing

reinforcement

Project Manager

Stephanie Cleary – Senior



Oversaw all aspects of the project.

In charge of AutoCAD drawings,

design paper and presentation

Mix Design

Nadia Correa – Senior



Researched best materials to use in

mix design, oversaw and conducted

mix design testing, in charge of

materials during casting day

Aesthetics Lead

James Staite – Senior



In charge of all aesthetics for the

canoe (including cross sections,

display, canoe stands) and choosing

the name

2


Hull Design and Structural Analysis

This year, the structures lead decided

to use a completely new design. For good

stability and good paddling efficiency, a

shallow arch hull design was chosen. The

maximum width of the hull affects the

stability of the canoe and the efficiency of

paddling. With this in mind, a canoe width

of 30” was chosen to ensure a good balance

between stability and paddling efficiency.

Due to the selection of the shallow arch hull

shape, the base of the canoe will consist of a

flat base that is width*(1/5) inches wide, or

6 inches at the canoe centerline. This base is

flanked by two quarter circles that each have

a radius of width*(2/5) inches, or 12 inches

at the centerline. On top of these quarter

circles, there are vertical side walls that have

a height equal to the chosen depth minus the

radius of the quarter circles at any given

point. At the centerline of the canoe, the

height of these side walls is 2 inches. This

decrease is directly proportional to the total

width of the cross section at any given point.

Figure 3: Depiction of the hull design

The rocker height was chosen to be

1.5 inches, as the two racecourses involve

sharp turns. Having a relatively steep rocker

will allow the canoe to make these sharp

turns. A hull thickness of 0.5” was chosen

so the canoe would not be extremely heavy,

but it will still be strong. The final length of

the canoe was chose to be 19’-1” because a

shorter canoe requires less materials and it

will then be lighter. It also provides a

balance between weight and max speed.

Also, 2 feet of floatation will be added on

either end. This number provides enough

flotation for the canoe to pass the

submersion test

In order to analyze the canoe using

only 2-D analysis, the following

assumptions were made:

The canoe was analyzed as a

diamond-shaped beam.

The distributed load for the canoe

weight and the hydraulic load are

both triangular shaped.

The people rowing the canoe were

assumed to be 200 lbs for males and

160 lbs for females.

The only analysis was 2-D analysis done by

hand by the structures lead. Seven different

loading scenarios were done to calculate the

maximum moment, compressive strength (in

psi) and tensile strength (in psi).

For the analysis portion of the canoe,

shear and moment diagrams need to be

computed to find the stresses. They were

found across the length of the canoe due to a

longer moment arm and a smaller section

modulus. The loading for the canoe involves

a triangular distributed load on the base of

the canoe for the hydraulic forces, a

triangular distributed load on top of the

canoe for the canoe weight, and point loads

for the passengers.

For the moment calculations

involving the moment caused by the display,

this same model was used except passenger

loading and the hydraulic distributed load

were removed. The shape of the length of

3


Figure 4: Free body diagram of loading for maximum negative

moment which has 1 woman and 1 male standing on either side

of the canoe

the canoe is, per the analysis method, able to

be anything wider than two triangles.

The following seven loading cases

were analyzed: max negative moment, max

positive moment, coed race loading, two

men race loading, two women race loading,

and max positive moment for display

loading. A factor of safety of 1.5 will be

added to the stresses caused by the max

negative moment (the highest stress), so

they become 64.05 psi in compression and

126.75 psi in tension. This also changes the

moment to -41220 lb*in. Shear and moment

diagrams as well as an internal stress

diagram aided in finding the overall

maximum moment, compression and tensile

strength. Below is an example of the

maximum negative moment diagrams.

Figure 6: Internal stresses diagram for the maximum

negative moment

Table 4: Seven different loading scenarios showing

the maximum moment, compressive strength and

tensile strength

The material properties used for

these calculations were given by the

materials lead, construction lead and project

manager. The density of the concrete being

used for Moe Moe Mano is 50.14 lb/ft3.

According to the project manager, the

volume of the canoe is 5984.3 in3 for a 19’-

1” canoe. Also, using HDX 1/2 in. x 48 in.

x 25 ft reinforcement, the volume of steel

needed is 154.99 in3 and the unit weight of

steel is 500 lb/ft3. Using this, the composite

unit weight of the entire canoe is:

𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑒

=

((𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒∗(𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒−𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡))+(𝛾𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙∗𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡))

𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒

Using this formula, the canoe average unit

weight is 61.8 lb/ft3.

In using a factor of safety of 1.5, the

structures lead wanted to make sure that

Moe Moe Mano was ready to endure the

treacherous waters of the concrete canoe

competition.

Loading Senario

Max Moment

(lb*in)

Max Compressive

Strength (psi)

Max Tensile

Strength (psi)

Max Neg Moment -27480 42.7 84.5

Max Positive

Moment 13740 42.3 21.3

Coed Loading -8760 13.6 26.9

2 Men Loading -8066.7 12.5 24.8

2 Women Loading -6453.3 10 19.8

Max Moment for

Display Loading 7251.7 22.3 11.3

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

negative moment

4


Development and Testing

The ERAU mix design team used the

previous year’s canoe “Miracle” as a

baseline for a control mix. That mix

consisted of Portland cement type I, local

sand, 3M Scotchlite K1 microbeads, fly ash,

and ADVA CAST 540. We aimed to reduce

the canoe’s unit weight to at least 70 pcf or

less, while maintaining or increasing the

same strength as the previous year’s canoe.

We used ASTM C 109 standard test

methods for 3-day compressive strengths,

testing various modified designs of the

baseline mix.

Figure 7: ASTM C 109 Standard Compressive

Strength Test

The initial mixes contained

variations of aggregates such as

cenospheres, K1 microbeads, 1.0-2.0 mm

poraver, and 2.0-3.0 mm Poraver, however

the 2.0-3.0 mm poraver proved to be too

large of an aggregate and decreased

workability. Mixes that contained the 1.0-

2.0 mm poraver provided better compressive

strengths results and were lighter than those

that contained the cenospheres therefore the

team ordered 2 additional diameter sizes of

Poraver, 0.5-1.0 mm and 0.25-0.5 mm

Poraver aggregates. Of the initial 3 day

compressive strength mixes, a mix that

contained only Portland cement and

metakaolin in its cementitious materials

proved to be lighter than a similar mix that

was comprised of Portland cement,

metakaolin, fly ash, and slag cement. While

designing and testing the new mixes, the

structures team lead informed the materials

lead of the necessary requirements for the

mix, so the canoe will pass all the loading

requirements. The compression of the

concrete mix needed to be higher than 64.05

psi and the tensile strength needed to be

higher than 126.75 psi. With that in mind,

the mix design team went back to work in

order to ensure these numbers were met.

By the end of the fall semester, the

materials lead had chosen two mixes.

Below is a table of one the mix designs

chosen:

Mix Design #1 (NOT THE FINAL MIX DESIGN)

Material Mass(g) %Volume

Portland Cement 175 34.45

Fly Ash 75 14.76

Cementitious Total 250 49.21

Cork 5 0.98

Poraver (1-2mm) 120 23.62

K1 microbeads 30 5.91

Fibers 3 0.59

Aggregate Total 158 31.10

Water 90 17.72

ADVA Cast 540 10 1.97

Liquid Total 100 19.69

Batch Total 508 100.00

W/C ratio 0.4

Table 5: One of the mix designs chosen to continue

testing at the end of the first semester

This mix had a water cement ratio of 0.4,

which is a water cement ratio that was

desired by the mix design team. The mix

proved to be extremely lightweight which

was needed for the canoe, but the only

5


problem was the mix was not very workable.

The following table shows the compressive

and tensile strengths of this mix. These

strengths both meet the requirements set by

the structures lead.

Table 6: Test results for the above mix design that

included Fly Ash

The second mix design selected for

further testing at the end of the second

semester was the following mix.

Mix Design #2 (The Final Mix Design)

Material Mass(g) %Volume

Portland Cement 200 38.87269

Metakaolin 50 9.718173

Cementitious Total 250 48.59086

Poraver (1-2mm) 20 3.887269

Poraver (0.5-1mm) 20 3.887269

Poraver (0.25-0.5mm) 35 6.802721

K1 microbeads 45 8.746356

Cork 1 5 0.971817

Fibers 3.5 0.680272

Aggregate Total 128.5 24.9757

Water 121 23.51798

ADVA Cast 540 15 2.915452

Liquid Total 136 26.43343

Batch Total 514.5 100

W/C ratio 0.544

1 Batch = 25 cubic inches Table 7: Final Mix Design Selected for Moe Moe

Mano

Concrete Mix Dry

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

7-day

Tensile

(psi)

28-day

Compressive

(psi)

Structural 68 70 197 2,288

Table 8: Final mix design weights and strengths

This mix design was chosen for the final

mix for Moe Moe Mano. The tensile

strength was found using the Split Cylinder

Test, ASTM C496. Below is the result of

the 3” diameter cylinder being tested.

There were many reasons for

choosing this specific mix design. It

contained Metapor – Metakaolin which

increases concrete strength and the specific

Metakaolin used in this mix design has

small amounts of fine expanded glass which

is used as a reactive pozzolanic hardening

additive. Polypropylene micro-fibers were

also used to greatly reduce plastic shrinkage

cracking and aided in increasing concrete

tensile strengthby acting as an added

reinforcement. The K1 beads were utilized

because they have a very low density and

are a lightweight aggregate. K1 microbeads

have a high-strength to weight ratio, with an

isostatic crush strength of 250 psi. Like last

year’s canoe, Miracle, ADVA Cast 540 was

used because it is a high-range water

reducing admixture. The most exciting

aggregates that were used in the final mix

design were cork and Poraver. Three types

of Poraver were used in the final mix design,

Test

Type

Test

Results Weight (g)

Compressive Strength

(psi)

3 day Cube 1 97.2 517

3 day Cube 2 105.3 537.5

3 day Cube 3 100.2 495

Figure 8: Final concrete mix after the

ASTM C496 Split Cylinder Tension Test

6


0.25-0.5mm, 0.5-1.0mm and 1-2mm.

Poraver helps provide a high compressive

strength and a low density to the final mix

design. Cork 0.2-0.5mm is impermeable,

has a low specific gravity and is elastic. The

Poraver and Cork used were also both

sustainable materials. Poraver are tiny

hollow glass spheres made from post-

consumer recycled glass. Cork is a 100%

natural, biodegradable, fully renewable and

recyclable material. The cork used in Moe

Moe Mano was imported from Portugal,

which is one the top producing global

exporters of cork. Cork harvesting is highly

regulated in Portugal; trees aren’t harvested

till they are 25 years old, and after that they

are harvested every 9 years. The extraction

methods used in Portugal do not damage the

tree’s surface at all. Also, the cork trees are

grown naturally, without the use of

pesticides, irrigation or pruning.

The reinforcement chosen is HDX

1/2 in. x 48 in. x 25 ft which is

reinforcement readily found at Home Depot

and only cost $58.88 a roll. This

reinforcement was chosen because it is a

very strong yet thin material, so multiple

layers can go into the 0.5” thick canoe The

structures lead used the worst case scenario,

maximum negative moment with one man

and one women standing on either sides of

the canoe, to compute a factored moment of

-41220 lb*in needed for the canoe to not

split in half. The construction lead took that

moment and found that four layers of

reinforcement were needed to achieve the

desired moment. For 4 layers of

reinforcement, the total tension force was

7408.8lb, the total compression force was

7803lb, and the moment was 55011.15lb*in.

While laying the reinforcement down on the

canoe though, it was found that four layers

of reinforcement could not fit on the mold.

Using our engineering judgment and

knowing that nobody will stand on either

side of the canoe at the same time, we only

placed 2 layers of reinforcement down on

the mold. Using the coed race loading, the

factored moment is 13140 lb*in. This

factored moment is 4x less than the

maximum negative moment being used in

the calculations. Knowing this, it is safe to

say that only two layers of reinforcement

would suffice for Moe Moe Mano.

Given that the compressive and

tensile strengths of the concrete and the

moment from the reinforcement are much

higher than the numbers the structures lead

calculated Moe Moe Mano must have, we

are confidant Embry-Riddle’s concrete

canoe can easily withstand the rigors of this

year’s competition.

Figure 9: 2 layers of the reinforcement mesh,

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

7


Construction

Utilizing last year’s canoe, Miracle,

as a base point, the construction lead

decided that a similar method needed to be

done to construct the mold. Last year,

Miracle, was made out of a female mold.

This proved to be problematic. More

material and man hours are put into building

a female mold over a male mold. Also,

while placing the concrete on the mold last

year, the concrete would slide down the

sides and pool at the bottom of the canoe.

This caused a 2” thick bottom to the canoe

that needed to be grinded off and also used

up more material than necessary. So, this

year the construction lead chose to use a

male mold. Male molds are more

compatible with reinforcement instillation as

well as placement of concrete.

Based on preliminary research, the

most successful molds were found to be

foam molds. A company was contacted to

do the mold in the exact dimensions that

were needed for the cost of $3,000. The

foam mold idea quickly went away because

of the inability to pay for it. The next and

only option was building a mold out of

wood like last year’s canoe.

In order to get the proper size for the

cross sections, an AutoCAD drawing was

made with correct cross sections for all of

the 11 cross sections used for the mold. The

calculations for the cross sections were

given to the project manager by the

structures lead and can be found in the Hull

Design and Structural Analysis section of

this paper.

Figure 11: Cross Sections for Moe Moe Mano built in

AutoCAD

Once the cross sections were complete, they

were printed out using a HP Designjet

Plotter on 2’x3’ sheets of paper. The cross

sections were then traced onto sheets of

plywood and cut. A 2’x16’ and a 2’x8’

wood section were nailed together and were

the base for the cross sections. Lastly, thin

wood strips were placed between the cross

sections to finalize the canoe shape.

When the wooden mold was

complete, plaster was then placed over the

mold. The plaster held the wood together

and made the mold one solid piece. Once

the plaster dried, it was sanded down until it

Figure 10: Depiction of male mold and female mold

Figure 12: The wooden mold at 90% completion.

Cross sections, wood base and wood strips exposed

8


Figure 16: Completed canoe before curing

was smooth, as to ensure the inside of the

canoe would be smooth.

While applying the plaster, the

construction lead noticed that removing the

mold may prove to be difficult if too much

plaster or too much concrete is applied in

certain places. The canoe would get stuck

on the mold and would be hard to remove.

In order to prevent possibly breaking the

canoe trying to get it out of the mold, bubble

wrap was added to the outside of the

plastered mold. The bubble wrap was

placed with the “bubbles” on the inside of

the canoe, so there would be no indents in

the concrete. The bubble wrap will help

take the canoe out of its mold easily and

without harm.

The reinforcement was placed in two

6’ sections in the middle of the canoe and

two 3’-10” sections at the ends of the canoe.

Two layers of these reinforcements were

placed on the canoe. In order to form the

reinforcement to the shape of the canoe, the

reinforcement was cut down the middle and

sewed tight together.

Figure 15: ASCE Member sewing wire mesh through

the two layers of reinforcement

The day before casting day, the

materials lead divided the dry materials up

into specific proportions and placed them

into containers for easy mixing on casting

day. 10 ASCE members showed up on

casting day to help place the concrete on the

canoe. After 13 hours, the canoe was

complete and ready to cure.

The canoe will not be taken out of

the mold until a week after this paper has

been submitted. In the two weeks before

conference, Moe Moe Mano will be sanded,

painted and have floatation placed in the en

Figure 13: Wooden mold covered in plaster,

before sanding took place

Figure 14: Bubble wrap over the plastered mold

9

ID Task Name Actual Start Actual Finish

1 First Meeting Wed 9/10/14 Wed 9/10/14

2 Hull Design Research Tue 9/9/14 Fri 9/26/14

3 Mix Design Research Mon 9/15/14 Mon 12/1/14

4 Choose Hull Design Fri 9/26/14 Fri 9/26/14

5 *AutoCad Drawing Tue 11/11/14 Fri 1/9/15

6 Choosing Reinforcement

Sat 11/1/14 Mon 12/1/14

7 Material Testing and Design

Mon10/20/14

Wed 12/10/14

8 *Mold Construction Mon 1/12/15 Sat 2/14/15

9 Design Theme Sat 11/15/14 Wed 12/10/14

10 Canoe Analysis Thu 11/20/14 Mon 12/1/14

11 Final Material Testing Sun 11/30/14 Fri 1/16/15

12 *Final Mix Selection Fri 1/16/15 Fri 1/16/15

13 *Casting Day Sun 2/15/15 Sun 2/15/15

14 Design Display Sun 3/1/15 Tue 3/17/15

15 Curing Sun 2/15/15 Sun 3/8/15

16 Patching and Sanding Sun 3/1/15 Tue 3/17/15

17 Add Floatation Sun 3/8/15 Sun 3/8/15

18 Paddling Practice Mon 2/16/15 Sun 3/15/15

19 Stain, Sealer, Pain Mon 3/9/15 Tue 3/17/15

20 Canoe Completion Tue 3/17/15 Tue 3/17/15

21 Design Paper and Engineer's Notebook

Mon 2/16/15 Wed 2/25/15

8/31 9/7 9/14 9/21 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22 3/1 3/8 3/15 3/22 3/29

August September October November December January February March

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup

Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Progress

Manual Progress

Page 1

Project: Project Schedule.mpp

Date: Thu 2/26/15

Bill of Materials

No. Item Description QTY

1 Wood Cross Section 1











12 Concrete (See Appendix B) 1

13 Reinforcement 2 layers

14 Male Mold 1


Appendix A – References

2015 American Society of Civil Engineers National Concrete Canoe Competition. Rules and

Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2015, from

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Membership_and_Communities/Student_Chapters/Concrete_

Canoe/Content_Pieces/nccc-rules-and-regulations.pdf

“Alluvium”. University of Nevada, Reno 2014 Concrete Design Paper. Retrieved from:

http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2014%20-%20Nevada%20Reno.pdf

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

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

Specimens,” ASTM International.

ASTM (2011). “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens,” ASTM C496/C496M-11, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Canoe Design. (2013, January 1). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from

http://www.canoeing.com/canoes/choosing/design.htm

“Drage”. Drexel University 2014 Concrete Canoe Report. Retrieved from:

http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2014%20-%20Drexel%20University.pdf

Lightweight Concrete. (2014, March 19). Retrieved February 26, 2015, from

http://www.poraver.com/us/applicationspna/lightweight-concrete/

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

Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

12

http://www.poraver.com/us/applicationspna/lightweight-concrete/


Appendix B – Mix Proportions

Mixture ID: Structural Design Proportions (Non

SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions

Yielded Proportions YD Design Batch Size (ft3): 27

Cementitious Materials SG Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

CM1 Portland Cement Type II 3.15 421.32 2.143 91.88 0.467 CM2 Metakaolin 2.60 105.33 0.649 22.97 0.142 CM3 CM4

Total Cementitious Materials: 526.65 2.79 114.85 0.61

Fibers 526.65

F1 Polypropylene 0.91 7.37 0.130 1.38 0.024 F2

Total Fibers: 7.37 0.13 1.38 0.02

Aggregates

A1 Poraver (0.25mm-0.5mm) Abs: 30

0.69 73.73 1.712 16.08 0.003

A2 Poraver (0.5mm - 1.0mm) Abs: 25

0.46 42.13 1.468 9.19 0.320

A3 Poraver (1.0-2.0mm) Abs: 20 0.42 42.13 1.608 9.19 0.351

A4 Cork (0.2mm-0.5mm) Abs: 0 0.06 10.53 2.813 2.30 0.614

A5 3M K1 Microbubbles Abs: 0.14 94.80 10.852 20.67 2.366

Total Aggregates: 263.32 18.45 57.43 3.65

Water W1 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)

1.00

277.02 4.439 62.02 0.994

W1a. Water from Admixtures 22.12

4.82

W1b. Additional Water 254.90 55.14

W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.00

Total Water (W1 + W2): 277.02 4.439 62.03 0.99

Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form

S1 Latex (if used) S2 Liquid Dye (if used) S3 Other Latex or Liquid Dye (if used) 1.10 9.48 0.138 2.07 0.030 P1 Pigment 1 (Powder Form)

Total Solids of Admixtures: 9.48 0.14 2.07 0.03

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

% Solids

Dosage (fl

oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Amount (fl oz)

Water in Admixture

(lb)

Dosage (fl

oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Ad1 ADVA CAST 540 8.8 lb/gal 30.00 83.69 22.12 96.12 6.890 Ad2 Admixture 2 lb/gal Ad3 Admixture 3 lb/gal

Water from Admixtures (W1a): 22.12 6.89

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.800

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.53

Slump, Slump Flow, in. M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1083.84 237.76 V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft3 25.95 5.31 T Theorectical Density, lb/ft3 = (M / V) 41.76 44.76 D Design Density, lb/ft3 = (M / 27) 40.14

D Measured Density, lb/ft3 A Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 3.88 Y Yield, ft3 = (M / D) 27

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / YD)

13


Appendix C – Bill of Materials

Material Quantitiy Unit Cost Total Price

Canoe Mold Lump Sum $215.76 $215.76

Tools Lump Sum $943.08 $943.08

Cork 0.034 15/lb $1.73

1-2 mm Poraver 55 L Bag 27 lb 0.70/lb $18.90

.05-1 mm Poraver 55 L Bag 33 lb 0.7/lb $23.10

0.25-0.5 mm Poraver 55 L Bag 38 lb 0.7/lb $26.60

1/2 in x 4 ft x 25 ft Hardware Cloth Lump Sum $294.40 $294.40

ADVA Cast 540 0.0685 ft3 23.99/lb $112.86

PSI Fiberstrand 100 0.1 ft3 3.24/lb $1.85

K1 Mircrobeads 0.303 ft3 18.78/lb $40.09

Metakaolin 0.336 ft3 0.02/lb $0.86

Portland Cement 1.35 ft3 0.09/lb $11.38

Total Cost $1,690.61

14


Appendix D – Example Structural Calculations

2 Male Loading Scenario

Assumptions:

- The canoe was analyzed as a diamond-shaped beam

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

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

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

Free Body Diagram

Shear and Moment Diagrams

15


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

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

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

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

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

Area of each arc = (πr12)/4 - (πr2

2)/4 = (π*122)/4 – (π*11.52)/4= 9.23 in2

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

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

Centroid = 4.70 inches from base

Moment of Inertia Base: Ibase = I + Adbase

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

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

Ibase = 60.16 in4

Base (each): Ibase = I + Adsides

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

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

dsides = 16.92 in

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

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

Isides = 290.3 in4

Arc (each): Iarc = I + Adarc

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

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

darc = 10.48 in

I = 0.0549r14 – 0.0549r2

4

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

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

Iarc = 1191.9 in4

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

Total Moment of Inertia of cross section =3024.6 in4

Y (in) A (in) A*y (in2)

Base 0.25 3 0.75

Arc 4.52 9.23 41.72

Arc 4.52 9.23 41.72

Side 13 1 13

Side 13 1 13

Σ 23.46 110.19

16

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moe Moe Manoweb2.utc.edu/~qvp171/2015 Concrete...

Documents

Transcript of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moe Moe Manoweb2.utc.edu/~qvp171/2015 Concrete...