Unladen Swallow 2011-2012

Who

are y

ou, who are so wise in the ways of science?

University of

Concrete Canoe Toronto

Team 2012

UNLADEN SWALLOW

iUniversity of Toronto Unladen Swallowi

¤ T able of Contents Report Sections

Executive Summary ii

Hull Design Page 1

Structural Analysis

Development and Testing Page 3

Construction Page 5

Project Management Page 7

Sustainability Page 8

Organization Chart Page 9

Project Schedule Page 10

Design Drawing Page 11

List of FiguresFigure 1 - Comparison of Hull Shapes Page 1

Figure 2 - Four Paddler Loading Page 2

Figure 3 - Test Beams Page 3

Figure 4 - Guiding Pipes Page 5

Figure 5 - Shrink Wrapping Page 5

Figure 6 - Casting the Core Layer Page 6

Figure 7 - Demoulding Page 6

Figure 8 - Salvaging Scrap Wood Page 8

List of TablesTable 1: Canoe Properties ii

Table 2: Hourly Breakdown of Tasks Page 7

List of AppendicesA - References A1

B - Mixture Proportions B1

C - Bill of Materials C1

iiUniversity of Toronto Unladen Swallowii

motivated them to soar above any challenges that lie ahead, and proudly compete for victory at the 18th annual CNCCC and first ever CSCE CNCCC.

Unladen SwallowLength 5.8 m

Maximum Width 74 cm

Maximum Depth 33 cm

Mass 53 kg

Nominal Hull Thickness 12 mm

Material Properties

Composite

Flexural Strength 30.1 MPa

Modulus of Elasticity 17.0 GPa

Layers of Carbon Fibre 2

Unit Weight 850 kg/m3

Core Mix

Compressive Strength 6.7 MPa




Fibre Mix





Finishing Mix





The University of Toronto, only fifteen years away from its bicentennial anniversary, has grown to become one of the top institutions of learning in both Canada and North America. The University of Toronto’s engineering faculty, centered on the St. George campus in downtown Toronto, is home to an undergraduate population of nearly 5000 stu-dents, and ranks among the top 20 in the world in engineering education. The University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team has brought together over 25 skilled members of numerous engineering disci-plines and various international backgrounds, show-casing the university’s diversity and dedication.

The recently sanctioned CSCE Canadian National Concrete Canoe Competition (CSCE CNCCC) has seen a team of dedicated engineering students from the University of Toronto for each of the last 17 years. For the first time in five years, the competition is being held outside both Ontario and Quebec. After placing 5th and 6th during the past two previous competitions, the team is look-ing to rebound strongly, and proudly represent one of both Ontario and Canada’s leading universities.

Having been given less restrictions in the com-petition rules, significant changes were made to last year’s concrete mix. The mix team returned to using ES200/600 CenospheresTM, which proved reliable in the past, focused on updating their bind-ers, and phased out some materials they were no longer able to acquire. The most important new materials include the NewCem® SlagTM and Ny-con-PVA fibres, which not only provided an in-crease in strength, but also provided a means to optimizing the sanding process of the final product.

With regards to mould construction, the team was able to utilize expanded polystyrene slices once more, but switched from vertical slices to horizontal. This not only kept Computer Nu-merical Control (CNC) milling time to a mini-mum, but it greatly reduced the risk of milling errors by requiring fewer mould pieces overall.

The University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team is proud to present its newest canoe, the Unladen Swallow (Table 1). A white canoe which has united the spirit of its team members and

¤ E xecutive Summary Table 1: Canoe Properties

University of Toronto Unladen SwallowPage 1

Generating and Evaluating Potential DesignsThe multivariable optimization problem of de-

signing the hull can be as subjective as it is com-plex. The vast range of variables to consider and the criteria to evaluate the results is largely priori-tized by the needs of paddlers and the experience of past hull designers. Years ago, in order to tackle this problem in a rational and quantitative manner, the University of Toronto’s Concrete Canoe Team developed a software solution: the Program for Automated Naval Design and Analysis (PANDA). Written in C++, PANDA uses an iterative method to generate and evaluate tens of thousands of po-tential hull designs per hour, based on a custom-izable range of input parameters and performance variables.

For each potential design, PANDA creates a three dimensional mesh to model the hull based on user defined values for 13 different parameters de-scribing the geometry of a canoe, including length, width, depth, rocker, flare angle as well as various shape and smoothing parameters. The top profile of the hull is formed by a tri-linear bounding box with a smoothing curve applied, while the keel line is simply described by a polynomial fit to the specified rockers and maximum depth coordinates. Bezier splines form the cross-sectional shape of the hull, allowing a wide variety of possible shapes. Each hull design is then subject to a performance function and evaluated based on the major factors that affect the performance of a canoe: mass, speed, tracking, turning, and stability. These characteris-tics are quantified by variables such as leak angle, depth of freeboard, and prismatic coefficient, all ob-tained through hydrostatic analysis; and low-speed resistance, obtained by using speed curves. These quantities are then normalized and weighted in or-

der to establish an optimizing function to produce an overall measure of merit for the canoe. Once complete, the designs achieving the highest scores can be used as a basis for that year’s canoe.

Final OutcomeThe range of values for each of PANDA’s 13 in-

put parameters was determined by using the param-eters of the 2010 canoe Braaaaainzzz as reference. Each parameter from this previous canoe was used as either a maximum, minimum or middle value for the range of values tested this year. Additionally, to allow other performance factors to have more im-pact in shaping the final product, less emphasis was given to the final mass of the canoe than was usual-ly the case. Overall, nearly 6.5 million hull designs were generated and evaluated this year.

Compared to the previous canoe, the final hull design for Unladen Swallow was selected to have a cross-sectional shape that was more round-ed, as opposed to being a boxy “U” (Figure 1). The rounder hull reduced surface area, decreasing drag and the overall mass of the canoe. This decrease in mass was intended to compensate for increasing the maximum depth of the canoe to 33 cm, which when paired with an increased flare angle of 15 degrees, reduced the likelihood of the canoe taking on wa-ter even when tilted significantly. The length of the canoe was set to 5.8 m to further minimize mass and the maximum width remained unchanged at 74 cm to optimize tracking. According to the analysis, a moderate rocker of 15 cm at the bow and shal-low rocker of 5 cm at the stern provided an optimal trade-off of speed and stability for maneuverability. Although the top profile of the canoe was designed with its centre of mass towards the stern as in previ-ous years, which allowed for a sleeker profile, the fullness of the canoe’s shape was increased to give the paddlers more room on the inside of the canoe.

While the automated software considerably as-sisted in the design, it is important to note that the direction of the design was ultimately in the hands of the design team. Unladen Swallow is a ca-noe designed for structural strength, speed and ex-cellent performance in the water, while trying to maintain the comfort of the paddlers inside.

¤ H ull Design

Unladen Swallow

Braaaaainzzz (2010)

Figure 1 - Comparison of Hull Shapes: Both cross-sections are from the widest points of their respec-tive canoes and presented at the same scale.


2.746

0.230

Loading Cases and Supporting ConditionsTo determine the material design requirements

for the selected hull, a finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted on a pair of loading cases and a pair of supporting conditions. The two loading cases were representative of the forces the canoe experi-ences when carrying the required number of pad-dlers for any given competition race. One case in-cluded two paddlers kneeling 3.3 m apart, and the other included four paddlers kneeling 1.1 m apart. In both loading cases paddlers were centred on the mid-point of the canoe’s length and each paddler was assumed to have a mass of 80 kg. Supporting conditions were analyzed to illustrate the effects of the strongest force the canoe might experience dur-ing transportation to the competition and how that force could be mitigated through proper bracing. In every analysis case the canoe itself was assumed to have a mass of 54 kg, based on the mix team’s goal of achieving a concrete density of no more than 860 kg/m3. The carbon fibre reinforced composite was assumed to have an elastic modulus of 11 GPa, which is consistent with previous years’ results.

ModelingThe program COSMOSWorks (Solid-Works

Corp. Concord, MA) was used to perform the FEA. The canoe’s hull was modeled using shell elements of two different thicknesses: 12 mm to represent the main body and 24 mm to represent the gunwales. Shell elements were used in analysis for greater ef-ficiency and accuracy of produced results. Given the relatively small forces in each analysis case, the use of a linear analysis was deemed acceptable.

Since a canoe is unrestrained when floating on water, the analysis aimed to simulate the loading cases with no fixed restraints. To achieve equilib-rium the gravity load of the canoe and its paddlers are counteracted by the buoyant force of the water beneath the waterline. Information about the ca-noe’s waterline was obtained using hydrostatic cal-culations in the program FREE!ship. Thus, in each loading case, the forces applied to the hull of the ca-noe consisted of a pressure gradient below the wa-terline, in accordance with Archimedes’ theory of buoyancy, gravity acting on the canoe itself and the

forces of paddlers kneel-ing in the canoe (approxi-mately 400 N per paddler knee). A Solid-Works feature, inertia relief, was used to stabilize the model in cases where rounding errors resulted in the forces acting on the canoe to be out of equilibrium.

As a result of inertia, a canoe sitting right-side up in a box, on a truck, will press

against the side of that box when the truck turns. For both

supporting conditions, restraints were placed on one half of the ca-

noe and a force was applied to the widest 3 metres of the other half

of the canoe. For the first condition, force was applied to the upper half of

the canoe to represent the canoe lean-ing into the side of the box; and for the

second condition, force was applied to the lower half of the canoe to represent a braced canoe, unable to lean or shift. The magnitude of the applied

force, 1688 N, was calculated from the formula for centripetal force, assuming a truck with a turn-ing radius of 12.8 m (Texas Department of Trans-portation 2010) makes such a turn while traveling at 20 km/h.

ResultsAccording to the transit analysis for the sup-

porting conditions a maximum tensile stress of 4.99 MPa could be incurred without bracing the canoe. With bracing however, the maximum stress drops a full order of magnitude to 0.49 MPa. The maxi-mum tensile stress incurred in either loading case was 2.75 MPa (Figure 2). Given these results it was important to note that the loading case analysis was based on static conditions. To compensate, a con-servative factor of safety of 4 was used to determine the need for Unladen Swallow to have a mini-mum composite tensile strength of 11 MPa.

¤ S tructural AnalysisStress (MPa)

Figure 2 - Four Paddler Loading:

Maximum stress load case.


ObjectivesThe two primary objectives for the mix team

were to improve mix workability for a better finish and to maximize the concrete’s strength in prepa-ration for reducing the hull thickness, or remov-ing layers of carbon fibre reinforcement in future years. A secondary objective to maintain or reduce the overall concrete density from last year was also established. An additional objective of finding a re-placement for the previously used DyneemaTM fi-bres was necessary, as this product could no longer be obtained from the team’s previous supplier.

In order to better meet these objectives, three separate mixes were developed. A core mix, the layer to be placed in-between the two layers of carbon fibre, required excellent workability in or-der to bond to both layers of carbon fibre. Flexural strength, however, was less of an issue as the flexur-al stresses were lower in this layer. The second mix, the structural fibre mix, was to be placed on either side of the core mix, sandwiching the two layers of carbon fibre. This mix was required to have the highest flexural strength in order to transfer the load to the carbon fibre. The final mix, the finishing mix, was to be placed on the outside of the canoe. This layer was used to provide a smooth hull and needed to be very workable in order to reduce the amount of necessary sanding.

TestingEvery week, mixes were cast by the team and

allowed to cure, with five different mixes being cast

each time. Each mix was cast into four rectangu-lar beams with a size of 1.1 cm by 6 cm by 40 cm (Figure 3). The curing process was set to 18 days of curing at a relative humidity of ~90%, allowing for cement hydration. This time frame allowed for efficient testing. Since the canoe would be allowed to cure for longer than 18 days, the test data would provide lower bound results, thus building in a fac-tor of safety.

Once the mixes had cured, flexural strength and flexural stiffness were measured using a three point bend test based on ASTM C947-03 (American Soci-ety for Testing and Materials, 2005) for thin beams.

BindersTo improve the strength of the mix, several

binder compositions were tested. Federal White Type I CementTM, fly ash, VCASTM, NewCem® Slag, and silica fume were all tested in various pro-portions. Colloidal nano-silica was also tested but quickly ruled out, as the improvement in strength it provided was determined to not be worth the reduc-tion in workability.

Through testing it was concluded that a com-bination of 50% white cement, 35% slag, and 15% VCASTM was optimal for flexural strength. Addi-tionally, slag was lighter in colour than fly ash or silica fume which was a desirable trait for finishing.

Slag had an additional benefit of turning a blue-green colour during the curing process. This colour was temporary and dissipated over time when ex-posed to air (Slag Cement Association, 2002). This helped act as a guide during the sanding process since fresh exposed concrete would appear as a different colour than unsanded surfaces. Slag was omitted from the finishing layer and replaced with VCASTM. This was done to provide a warning if over sanding of the finishing layer occurred.

AggregatesDue to the extensive binder, admixture, and

fibre testing, only minimal aggregate testing was completed with minor modifications to a previous year’s mixes.

In the structural fibre layers, testing showed (all in v/v) that 5% ES200/600 CenospheresTM, 42% Po-

¤ D evelopment and Testing

Figure 3 - Test Beams: Concrete was cast into four rectangular moulds. The resulting beams were then subject to flexural strength and stiffness testing.


raver® (0.25 – 0.5 mm), 33% Expancel® Micro-spheres, and 20% S15 Microspheres provided ex-cellent strength for its density. This was modified slightly for the core layer in order to reduce the density, at the price of strength. This led to a core aggregate mix of 42% Poraver®, 33% Expancel® Microspheres, and 25% S15 Microspheres. The mix was further modified to 33% Poraver®, 34% Expancel® Microspheres, and 33% S15 Micro-spheres in the finishing layer. Increasing the S15 Microspheres content improved workability, allow-ing for a smoother surface finish.

AdmixturesSBR LATEX was included to improve the

strength of the mix. SBR LATEX had significantly higher solids content than last year’s latex, at 48%. This allowed for a significant increase in the latex dosage to 41600 ml/100 kg cm without limiting the minimum water cement ratio. Glenium 7700®, a high-range water-reducing admixture, was added to the concrete in a 750 ml/100 kg cm dosage. This dosage was within the range recommended by the manufacturer and provided excellent workability under qualitative test conditions. The air entrainer, AIREX-L, was used at the manufacturer’s recom-mended dosage of 100 ml/100 kg of cm. A work-ability-retaining admixture, RheoTECTM Z-60, was also added to the concrete at a dosage of 500 ml/100 kg cm. This dosage was selected under a qualita-tive testing process. Workability over time was de-termined to be improved with the dosage selected. Maintaining workability was extremely important due to the current casting technique where concrete could sit for as long as an hour before being cast.

Secondary ReinforcementFinding a replacement for the previously used

DyneemaTM fibres was necessary as this product could no longer be obtained from the team’s suppli-er. Several lightweight Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) fi-bres were tested, all showing slightly lower strength compared to DyneemaTM. In the end a 50/50 blend of Nycon-PVA RECS7 and RECS15 fibres were se-lected and used in the same volume as last year’s, 1% v/v. Testing showed they maintained 95% of their strength when compared to DyneemaTM fibres.

Secondary fibre reinforcement was only used in the structural fibre layers of the hull. It was omitted in other layers to improve workability and reduce density.

As done in previous years, to compensate for the reduced workability in the fibre layers, the bind-er content ratio was increased from 34% to 36% and the aggregate ratio was lowered by 3% for any mix with secondary reinforcement. However, the Nycon-PVA fibres reduced the workability more than the DyneemaTM fibres and thus the w/cm ratio also needed to be increased. The fibre layer w/cm ratio was increased from 0.325 to 0.350 in order to provide a more workable mix.

Primary ReinforcementCarbon fibre mesh was used again as primary

reinforcement. The team’s experience and previous success with carbon fibre made it a clear choice for reinforcement. The carbon fibre mesh was initially a closely woven mesh, and it was necessary to manu-ally removes strands to create an open area that met the competition requirements and allowed for the layers of concrete to bond to each other. Across the length of the carbon fibre mesh, 3 strands of fibre were pulled out for every set of 5. Across the width, alternate pairs were pulled out, leaving the finished mesh with an open area of approximately 45%.

ConclusionThe culmination of the year’s research led to an

effective flexural strength, assuming gross sectional properties, of 30.1 MPa for the final composite mix with carbon fibre, with an elastic modulus of 17.0 GPa and a density of 850 kg/m3. The strength gain was due to the increased binder strength as well as the improved workability, which allowed for bet-ter layer bonding. Although this flexural strength was far beyond the strength needed for the canoe, as indicated by the structural analysis of the hull, it contributes to the team’s previously stated goal of maximizing strength to allow future teams the ability to reduce hull thickness and perhaps even remove layers of carbon fibre. The improved work-ability of the mixes led to a smoother finish on the interior and exterior of the hull and significantly re-duced the sanding required.


Designing and Building a MouldOnce the hull analysis was completed, using the

newest set of parameters and canoe shape data, it was time to design and build a mould for the canoe. The team decided to continue using a male mould for casting the final product. The reasons were that this particular type of mould tends to leave a smoother inside finish that requires less sanding on the inside of the canoe, and the concrete mixes used have the appropriate workability to adhere to the mould and other layers of concrete when cast. With the resources available to the team, a male mould was also considered to be less expensive, and easier to build, helping to maintain a tight budget and schedule. This year’s fibre mix was also more workable, which allowed members to cast the first layer over the mould more evenly.

The mould was designed using a Computer Aided Design (CAD) program, and emailed to a representative of a nearby CNC (Computer Numer-ical Control) milling facility. The length of the ca-noe had been split into three sections for the mould, with five layers total. Every piece of the mould was made from expanded polystyrene. Horizontal slices were put together for each side of the canoe, with six pieces for the base. Short 2.54 cm diam-eter pipes were inserted through guiding holes in specific locations to keep the pieces of expanded polystyrene in a single layer aligned and to make stacking subsequent layers easier (Figure 4). The mould was measured frequently during assembly to

ensure that pieces fit together as originally planned and any holes or spaces that could not be closed were filled with silicon caulking or drywall com-pound to prevent unwanted defects in the surface of the finished canoe.

This year, the mould pieces were cut into long horizontal slices rather than thin vertical slices. This reduced the number of cut pieces from over 100 to just 24, which reduced the risk of cutting errors. The amount of time spent milling the mould pieces was also kept to a minimum, reducing the cost of the milling job. To ensure that the inner sur-face of the canoe would be as smooth as possible, the mould pieces were all sanded by hand with fine grit sand paper before shrink wrap was applied. Af-ter the outside of the mould was shrink-wrapped, it was blow-dried to create a smooth surface between the concrete and the expanded polystyrene (Figure 5). The inside edges of the gunwale mould were tuck-taped instead of shrink wrapped for an even smoother finish.

Casting the CanoeThis year’s canoe had four layers of concrete

made from three different mixes. The first layer cast directly onto the mould was the fibre mix,

¤ C onstruction

Figure 5 - Shrink Wrapping: After the mould had been assembled and sanded, a thin plastic film was laid down and heated, producing a smooth finish.

Figure 4 - Guiding Pipes: Piping was inserted into the mould, before being trimmed to length, to en-sure proper alignment between the various pieces.


containing PVA fibres as a secondary reinforce-ment. A sheet of carbon fibre mesh, modified to have an open area large enough for the competition requirements, was then placed over the first layer of concrete, followed by a layer of the core mix (Fig-ure 6). The core mix did not contain any secondary fibres so that it could bond more easily through the carbon fibre mesh, and because it will be under less stress compared to the structural fibre layers. The strength of the surrounding layers was high enough to take the opportunity to conserve fibres and reduce the canoe’s weight overall by not including them in the core mix. It had also been found that non-fibre mixes were easier to prepare and cast. Since casting was to be done in one day, the reduced preparation and work time was greatly beneficial. After casting the core mix, another layer of carbon fibre mesh and then fibre mix were cast over it. This third layer of concrete was an identical mixture to the first layer. Finally, a thin finishing layer of light concrete was cast over the entire canoe. The thickness of this lay-er was visually inspected to ensure the final product stayed within its specified dimensions.

Curing and FinishingOnce the team finished casting the final layer

of the canoe, a humidity tent was assembled and

placed around the canoe. The canoe was left in the tent with four humidifiers for 21 days before the tent was disassembled. Next, the canoe was left to dry cure for an extra week before the screws used to fasten the mould to the casting table were removed. Before excavating the mould, time was taken to sand the bottom of the canoe while it could still be rested on top of its polystyrene mould without risk-ing damage to the gunwales. Demoulding simply consisted of removing the expanded polystyrene inside the canoe one layer at a time after sliding out the guiding pipes between pieces. In addition, because of the use of horizontal slices, removing the bottom half of the mould was easy and fairly straight forward (Figure 7). It was not necessary to have to dig or slice as deep through the mould to remove single segments, and once a few segments were removed, only the last layer of the mould was difficult to remove since it was wedged into the tightest parts of the bow and stern. More than half of the demoulding was done in less than an hour, providing the team with more time to work on the canoe’s aesthetics. Afterwards, the final stretch of finishing commenced with long sanding sessions to prepare the inside and outside of the canoe for sealing and staining. The decals were placed onto the canoe after the acid stain design was completed and sealed to prevent colours from bleeding. Sand-ing and staining were both done outside of the main building, as the dust and fumes could cause respira-tory irritation in an improperly environment.

Figure 6 - Casting The Core Layer: A layer of carbon fibre mesh is applied over the first structural fibre layer and the core layer is cast on top.

Figure 7 - Demoulding: Removing the expanded polystyrene mould was especially easy this year, as the pieces could be removed layer by layer.


Structure and BudgetThe team this year had a relatively simple or-

ganization structure, with multiple members given similar positions, so that they could work together and accomplish their tasks more effectively. For this competition year, the majority of planning focused around budget constraints. Despite both monetary and material donations, the travel arrangements from Toronto to Moncton were the most difficult logistics challenge the team has had to handle in five years. New items for construction or mix proj-ects were only bought if the team could not salvage, reuse, or have the materials donated. Many com-panies were contacted to obtain materials that they would normally throw away in a state unusable to them, but useful to the team with some minor modi-fications. Team members also picked up materials personally to avoid unnecessary delivery fees.

SchedulingEvent planning started at the beginning of Au-

gust, in preparation for a large recruitment cam-paign that would begin in September. Control mix-es were made in early October, and despite starting later than usual, non-candidate mix testing was finished by mid-December. While this was occur-ring, the hull design team worked separately to en-sure that a complete design would be ready before the end of December, and CNC milling would be scheduled for the middle of January. Casting Day was February 4th, to ensure maximum member-ship turnout before reading week. This was the only major milestone to suffer a significant setback, as additional testing was needed to determine if an er-ror occurred during the final candidate beam tests. However, this delay was only one week long, and aside from Casting Day, the only major milestones left were the technical report, and being fully pre-pared for the competition.

The critical path schedule revolved around de-veloping a new concrete mix this year. Without mix-es and a mould, the canoe cannot be cast, and the mould was designed and milled earlier than expect-ed. Mix design started before regular team meetings due to the sheer volume of aggregate, binder, and admixture combinations available. Additionally,

this year’s final mix decisions came only a few days before Casting Day. After casting, the canoe began to cure immediately. With the short amount of time left, the canoe’s completion was prioritized over all other factors. While other preparations were to be made for the competition, nothing had a tighter schedule or higher priority than completing the fi-nal product. Table 2 highlights the amount of time dedicated to certain tasks throughout the year.

Safety and Quality ControlMultiple safety policies were implemented for

mixing and construction procedures. Some light-weight materials used in concrete mixes were known respiratory irritants, and hazardous if consumed di-rectly. Therefore, before anyone was allowed into the mix room, which has its own vacuum filter and was located a floor above the main workspace, they must wear a NIOSH (National Institute of Occupa-tional Safety & Health) approved filtration mask, indirectly vented safety goggles and nitrile gloves, as some people may be allergic to latex gloves. These were provided by the team, along with a pair of coveralls if requested. To reduce the risk of accidents and injuries, no mixing or construction projects were conducted single-handedly without supervision. All construction tools were briefly in-spected before use, and any task that would create a large amount of dust, sawdust, fumes, or particle debris was conducted outside the main building.

For testing purposes, including curing and three-point bend beam testing, CSA (Canadian Standards Association) and ASTM (American So-ciety for Testing and Materials) standards were applied to maintain consistent and high quality re-sults. When conducting slump tests, the procedure and measurements were based on the instructions of Ramachandran et al (1988). In all other cases, the managers acted as supervisors for quality control.

¤ P roject Management

Table 2: Hourly Breakdown of Tasks

Task hoursHull Design & Analysis 500Concrete Design 800Canoe Construction 1900Administrative Duties 350Paddler Training 400


OverviewThe primary focus of the team this year was to

optimize both the testing processes and construc-tion stages throughout the year to minimize the cost of materials and the waste produced by them. Al-though the utilization of recycled aggregates and reinforcements has continued, there is more to sus-tainability in building a concrete canoe than just the ingredients of the concrete mix. Over the past eight months, much effort was made to improve curing, sanding, and mould construction techniques, and the progress has been documented so that future teams can benefit from and expand on the knowl-edge gathered this year.

Minimizing Cost & Reducing WasteCNC milling has been the sole method of sculpt-

ing expanded polystyrene for the mould for the last several years. Last year however, the change was made from milling the mould out of large polysty-rene blocks to milling it out of thin slices, to reduce the possibility of milling errors and wasting mate-rial. However, these slices ran vertically along the length of the canoe, and still generated a consid-erable amount of waste even when multiple pieces were cut from one sheet, as space was required be-tween each slice drawn on a sheet. By making the slices horizontal this year, fewer sheets of expanded polystyrene were required as space was used more efficiently. Further, the milling was completed in one day, when milling has typically been done over multiple days. As an added bonus, the horizontal slices also fit together more tightly, since cutting a few large pieces left less room for error than cutting many smaller ones.

To improve sanding efficiency, and produce less concrete dust, the sanding layer did not contain any new slag. When sanding, if the layer that contained slag was exposed, it would turn a dark shade of teal, indicating the area had been sanded enough, and that a fine grit should be used to finish. With a clear maximum threshold, members could easily pace themselves and save time and manpower for staining and sealing.

Travel expenses for this year were much larg-er than anticipated, requiring a re-examination of

how materials were obtained and disposed. If lum-ber was needed for a construction project, such as the humidity tent or display, members worked with what was left over from any previous projects first, including those from other design teams at the Uni-versity of Toronto, and then stored anything else that was usable for a later date (Figure 8).

A new wet curing method for test beams was also experimented with this year. Instead of curing the beams in a miniature humidity tent, they were kept completely submerged in a large bin of water. There were numerous benefits to this, since curing was not only faster and more consistent between beams, but this process did not waste electricity with humidifiers running for weeks at a time. These tests acted only as a proof-of-concept for future teams that might want to try an alternative curing method. All beams whose results contributed to this year’s canoe were cured in a humidity tent, to re-flect how the final product was cured.

Planning for the FutureWith all of the changes that have occurred, it

was necessary to keep a record of any accomplish-ments or setbacks so that future members can con-tinue to build concrete canoes in a sustainable man-ner. In addition, thanks to multiple events hosted by the University of Toronto where design teams can showcase their work, the team shared and promot-ed their ideas with a large number of people, and encouraged them to do more to maintain a balance between the environment and their personal lives.

¤ S ustainability

Figure 8 - Salvaging Scrap Wood: Scrap wood gath-ered from the remains of a past project completed by another University of Toronto design team.


¤ O rganization Chart

Alex Szot

Logistics Project Manager and Mix Manager

Oversees team schedule, travel preparations,

and is responsible for designing and testing

concrete mixes, reinforcement, and curing

techniques.

David Ferri

Technical Project Manager

Co-ordinates team meetings, task delegation,

written reports and monitors team members

and work efficiency. Also responsible for

obtaining new materials and tools.

Evan Ma

Casting Manager

Assists the Mix Manager

with mix testing and is the

liaison for the mix team and

casting team when making

the canoe.

Janet Wong

Treasurer

Manages team finances, and

monitors all spending to ensure

the team stays within a budget

outlined during the summer.

Thomas Schaepsmeyer, Marko

Spudic, and Michael Ferri

Co-Hull Designers

In charge of both designing the

canoe’s shape and creating the

mould the team casts around.

Nigel Fung and Matthew Wu

Co-Paddling Coaches

In charge of scheduling all

practices and training of

paddling team members for the

endurance and sprint races.

Cole Wheeler and Jason Yee

Co-Construction Managers

Design and build important

non-concrete apparatus, and

teach members how to use

available construction tools.

Lina Yu

Sponsorship Manager and

Logistics Assistant

Plans out and supervises

all fundraising events and

activities.

Matthew Innocente

Finishing Manager In charge of obtaining and

testing sealers and stains, as

well as completing the canoe’s

final design.

Collin Zhou

Graphic Designer

Technical artist in charge of

designing the team logo,

and assists with the creation

of the report, display, and

canoe artwork.

Faculty Advisors: Prof. Kim Pressnail Prof. Karl Peterson

Faculty Advisor and Liaison SEM Imaging Advisor

Renzo Basset Lorine Jung Dan Grozea

Concrete Lab Supervisor Financial Account Support Tensile Lab Supervisor


ID Task Name1 Project Timeline2 Project Management3 Establish Goal and Deadlines4 Budget Analysis5 Organize Space and Renew Contracts6 Recruitment Campaign7 Sponsorship and Fundraising Activities8 Logistical Planning (Competition)9 Hull Analysis10 Design Assessment11 Finalize Performance Criteria12 Rapid Generation and Analysis of Designs13 Final Design Refinement14 Mould Design and Computer Drawing15 Mix Design16 Inventory Analysis and Test Scheduling17 Control Mix and Curing Design18 Material Research and Acquisition19 Water/Latex Cement ratio Analysis20 Binder Testing21 Aggregate Testing22 Composite Testing23 Candidate Mix Assessment24 Final Mix Decision25 Canoe Construction26 CNC Milling27 Mould Prep and Assembly28 Casting Day29 Curing30 Demoulding31 Finishing (Sanding, Staining, and Sealing)32 Technical Report33 Writing34 Editing35 Printing and Mailing36 Report Due Date37 Presentation and Display38 Theme Discussion and Decision Vote39 Canoe Stand Construction and Decoration40 Display Board Design and Construction41 Power Point Presentation42 Presentation Rehearsals43 Paddling44 Fitness Training45 Fall Outdoor Training46 Indoor Pool Training47 Spring Outdoor Training48 Official Competition Team Decided49 Competition Date50 Management Transition Meeting

7/12

1/131/9

1/28 2/4

3/31

4/15

10/15

3/24 4/15/11

June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 201 October 2011 November 201 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012

Task Schedule

Actual Progress

Split

Original Milestone

Actual Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Critical Tasks

Critical Milestone

Deadline

Page 10

Project: Project Schedule Gantt ChartDate: Sat 4/7/12


7/12

1/131/9

1/28 2/4

3/31

4/15

10/15

3/24 4/15/11


Task Schedule

Actual Progress

Split

Original Milestone

Actual Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Critical Tasks

Critical Milestone

Deadline

Page 10



7/12

1/131/9

1/28 2/4

3/31

4/15

10/15

3/24 4/15/11


Task Schedule

Actual Progress

Split

Original Milestone

Actual Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Critical Tasks

Critical Milestone

Deadline

Page 10


A1University of Toronto Unladen SwallowA1

American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). “Standard Test Method for Flexural Properties of Thin-Section Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Third-Point Loading).” ASTM International Standard C947-03. West Conshohocken, PA.

Slag Cement Association. (2002). “Greening.” Slag Cement in Concrete, 10, 1.

Ramachandran, V.S., Shihua, Z., and Beaudoin, J. J., (1988). “Application of Miniature Tests for Work-ability of Superplasticized Cement Systems.” Il Cemento, 85, 83-88.

Texas Department of Transportation (2010). “Roadway Design Manual.” Miscellaneous Design Elements, Design Division, Austin, Texas, 233

¤ A ppendix A - References

B1University of Toronto Unladen SwallowB1

¤ A ppendix B - Mixture Proportions YD

SGAmount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(g)

Volume

(L)

Amount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

CM1 3.15 192.87 0.061 578.61 0.184 198.73 0.063

CM2 2.50 135.01 0.054 405.03 0.162 139.11 0.056

CM3 2.60 57.86 0.022 173.58 0.067 59.62 0.023

385.74 0.137 1157.22 0.412 397.46 0.142

F1 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

F2 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

A1 Abs: 0% 0.025 5.59 0.224 16.77 0.671 5.76 0.230

A2 Abs: 2% 0.59 137.60 0.233 412.80 0.700 141.78 0.240

A3 Abs: 0% 0.16 22.93 0.143 68.79 0.430 23.63 0.148

166.12 0.600 498.36 1.800 171.17 0.618

W1 125.37 0.125 376.10 0.376 129.17 0.129

87.65 262.96 90.32

37.71 113.13 38.86

W2 1.00 2.75 8.26 2.84

128.12 0.125 384.35 0.376 132.01 0.129

S1 1.00 77.02 0.077 231.07 0.231 79.36 0.079

77.02 0.077 231.07 0.231 79.36 0.079

Ad1 1000 g/cm³ 48 41600 83.44 481.40 250.33 42863.8 85.98

Ad2 1060 g/cm³ 25 500 1.53 5.79 4.34 515.2 1.58

Ad3 1007 g/cm³ 5 100 0.37 1.16 1.10 103.0 0.38

Ad4 1064 g/cm³ 25 750 2.31 8.68 6.51 772.8 2.38

87.65 262.28 90.32

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / Y D ) 0.97

Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 6.0 3.14 3.14

Yield, m3

= (M / D) 1 0.00291 1

Design Density, kg/m3 757.00

Measured Density, kg/m3 780.00 780.000

Absolute Volume of Concrete, m3 0.94 0.00282 0.97

Theorectical Density, kg/m3 805.31 805.31 805.31

Slump, Slump Flow, mm. 50 50 50

Mass of Concrete. Kg 757.00 2.27 780.00

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.325 0.325 0.325

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

SBR LATEX

RheoTECTM

Z-60

AIREX-L

Glenium 7700®

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Amount

(ml)

Water in

Admixture

(g)

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)

Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and Dyes

SBR LATEX

Total Solids of Admixtures:

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form) %

Solids

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)

W1b. Additional Water

Water for Aggregates, SSD

1.00

Total Water (W1 + W2) :

S15 Microspheres

Total Aggregates:

Water

Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)

W1a. Water from Admixtures

Poraver® (0.25-0.5mm)

Cementitious Materials

Federal White Type I Cement

NewCem® Slag

VCASTM

Total Cementitious Materials:

Fibres

Nycon-PVA RECS7

Nycon-PVA RECS15

Total Fibres:

Aggregates

Expancel® Microspheres

Mixture ID: Core Layer Design Proportions

(Non SSD)

Actual Batched

ProportionsYielded Proportions

Design Batch Size (m3): 0.003


YD

SGAmount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(g)

Volume

(L)

Amount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

CM1 3.15 198.58 0.063 595.74 0.189 215.95 0.069

CM2 2.50 139.01 0.056 417.03 0.167 151.17 0.060

CM3 2.60 59.57 0.023 178.71 0.069 64.78 0.025

397.16 0.142 1191.48 0.425 431.91 0.154

F1 1.00 6.50 0.007 19.50 0.020 7.07 0.007

F2 1.00 6.50 0.007 19.50 0.020 7.07 0.007

13.00 0.013 39.00 0.039 14.14 0.014

A1 Abs: 0% 0.025 4.34 0.174 13.02 0.521 4.72 0.189

A2 Abs: 2% 0.59 130.15 0.221 390.45 0.662 141.54 0.240

A3 Abs: 1% 0.95 26.03 0.027 78.09 0.082 28.31 0.030

A4 Abs: 0% 0.16 17.35 0.108 52.05 0.325 18.87 0.118

177.87 0.530 533.61 1.590 193.43 0.576

W1 139.01 0.139 417.02 0.417 151.17 0.151

90.25 270.75 98.15

48.76 146.27 53.02

W2 1.00 2.86 8.59 3.11

141.87 0.139 425.61 0.417 154.28 0.151

S1 1.00 79.30 0.079 237.91 0.238 86.24 0.086

79.30 0.079 237.91 0.238 86.24 0.086

Ad1 1000 g/cm³ 48 41600 85.91 495.66 257.74 45239.5 93.43

Ad2 1060 g/cm³ 25 500 1.58 5.96 4.47 543.7 1.72

Ad3 1007 g/cm³ 5 100 0.38 1.19 1.13 108.7 0.41

Ad4 1064 g/cm³ 25 750 2.38 8.94 6.70 815.6 2.58

90.25 270.04 98.15

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry

896.23

2.43

0.00271

896.23

880.00

0.98

896.23

Mass of Concrete. Kg

Absolute Volume of Concrete, m3

809.20

Theorectical Density, kg/m3

Design Density, kg/m3

809.20

0.90


SBR LATEX



1.00


Yield, m3

= (M / D)

Measured Density, kg/m3

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

880.00 880.000

Glenium 7700®


RheoTECTM

Z-60

50

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Slump, Slump Flow, mm.

Relative Yield = (Y / Y D )

9.7

1

0.92

10.00276

1.81 1.81

VCAS TM

Design Proportions

(Non SSD)

Actual Batched


Total Fibres:

Mixture ID: Structural (Fibre) Layer

0.003Design Batch Size (m3):



NewCem® Slag

Total Aggregates:

Water





S15 Microspheres

ES200/600 Cenospheres

Aggregates


Fibres

Nycon-PVA RECS7

Nycon-PVA RECS15

50

Water in

Admixture

(g)

Amount

(ml)

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

50

0.50

0.35

0.50

0.35

0.50

0.35Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio



Solids

SBR LATEX

AIREX-L


YD

SGAmount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(g)

Volume

(L)

Amount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

CM1 3.15 194.06 0.062 582.18 0.185 202.33 0.064

CM2 2.60 194.06 0.075 582.18 0.224 202.33 0.078

388.12 0.136 1164.36 0.409 404.65 0.142

F1 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

F2 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

A1 Abs: 0% 0.025 4.74 0.190 14.22 0.569 4.94 0.198

A2 Abs: 2% 0.59 110.51 0.187 331.53 0.562 115.22 0.195

A3 Abs: 0% 0.16 29.32 0.183 87.96 0.550 30.57 0.191

144.57 0.560 433.71 1.680 150.73 0.584

W1 126.14 0.126 378.42 0.378 131.51 0.132

88.20 264.59 91.95

37.94 113.83 39.56

W2 1.00 2.21 6.63 2.30

128.35 0.126 385.05 0.378 133.82 0.132

S1 1.00 77.50 0.077 232.50 0.232 80.80 0.081

77.50 0.077 232.50 0.232 80.80 0.081

Ad1 1000 g/cm³ 48 41600 83.96 484.37 251.87 43372.1 87.53

Ad2 1060 g/cm³ 25 500 1.54 5.82 4.37 521.3 1.61

Ad3 1007 g/cm³ 5 100 0.37 1.16 1.11 104.3 0.39

Ad4 1064 g/cm³ 25 750 2.32 8.73 6.55 781.9 2.42

88.20 263.90 91.95

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / Y D ) 0.96

Fibres

Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 10.0 6.16 6.16

Yield, m3

= (M / D) 1 0.00288 1

Design Density, kg/m3 738.54

Measured Density, kg/m3 770.00 770.000

Absolute Volume of Concrete, m3 0.90 0.00270 0.94

Theorectical Density, kg/m3 820.56 820.56 820.56

Slump, Slump Flow, mm. 60 60 60

Mass of Concrete. Kg 738.54 2.22 770.00

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.325 0.325 0.325

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

SBR LATEX

RheoTECTM

Z-60

AIREX-L

Glenium 7700®


Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Amount

(ml)

Water in

Admixture

(g)

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)


SBR LATEX



Solids

Dosage

(ml/ 100 kg

cm)



1.00


S15 Microspheres

Total Aggregates:

Water






VCASTM


Nycon-PVA RECS7

Nycon-PVA RECS15

Total Fibres:

Aggregates


Mixture ID: Finishing Layer Design Proportions

(Non SSD)

Actual Batched


Design Batch Size (m3): 0.003

C1University of Toronto Unladen SwallowC1

¤ A ppendix C - Bill of Materials Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost (CAD)

Federal White Type I Cement 19.7 kg $0.47 per kg $ 9.26

NewCem® Slag 11 kg $1.85 per kg $ 20.35

VCASTM 8.6 kg $1.19 per kg $ 10.23

Poraver® (0.25-0.5mm) 12.8 kg $1.48 per kg $ 18.94

Expancel® Microspheres 0.44 kg $39.68 per kg $ 17.46

S15 Microspheres 2.06 kg $24.05 per kg $ 49.54

ES200/600 Cenospheres 1.56 kg $9.44 per kg $ 14.73

SBR LATEX 16.4 L $6.28 per L $ 102.99

Nycon-PVA RECS7 0.39 kg $24.25 per kg $ 9.46

Nycon-PVA RECS15 0.39 kg $24.25 per kg $ 9.46

AIREX-L 0.04 L $14.00 per L $ 0.56

RheoTECTM Z-60 0.2 L $9.15 per L $ 1.83

Glenium 7700® 0.3 L $8.00 per L $ 2.40

Carbon Fibre 14 m2 $20.00 per m2 $ 280.00

Vinyle Lettering Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 302.59

Blue Acid Stain 1 L $31.41 per L $ 31.41

Yellow Acid Stain 1 L $31.41 per L $ 31.41

Black Acid Stain 1 L $31.41 per L $ 31.41

Sealer 4 L $15.50 per L $ 62.00

Foam Mould, Complete Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 1,815.95

Total: $ 2,821.98

Unladen Swallow 2011-2012

Documents

Transcript of Unladen Swallow 2011-2012