UAH 2014 Design Paper

To Whom It May Concern:
This page is our plastic cover and
has been included to enable our
design paper to be viewed as printed.
The Table of Contents is on the back
of the Front Cover and the rest of the
report is double sided.
To see what the paper looks like in
double sided format, click the “view”
tab, scroll down to “page display” and
then hit “two-up”.
Regards,
Team UAH

2014 National Concrete Canoe Competition
Design Paper

“PHOENIX” Replenishing the life
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ············································································································································· ii
Project Management ············································································································································ 1
Organization Chart ··············································································································································· 2
Hull Design ·························································································································································· 3
Structural Analysis ··············································································································································· 4
Development and Testing ···································································································································· 5
Construction ························································································································································· 7
Project Schedule ··················································································································································· 9
Design Drawing ··················································································································································· 10
List of Figures
Fig. 1. PHOENIX hull shape and attributes ········································································································ 3
Fig. 2. Typical paddler output (men’s team) ······································································································· 3
Fig. 3. Performance predictions (all teams) ········································································································· 3
Fig. 4. Design for composite cross section ·········································································································· 4
Fig. 5. Material costs ($1,530) ····························································································································· 7
Fig. 6. Project person-hours (1,095) ···················································································································· 8
List of Tables
Table 1.0 Pertinent Information ··························································································································· ii
Table 3.1 Summary of Mix Proportions ·············································································································· B1
Table 6.1 Bill of Materials and Production Cost Estimate ·················································································· C1
List of Appendices
Appendix A – References ···································································································································· A1
Appendix B – Mixture Proportions ····················································································································· B1
Appendix C – Bill of Materials ···························································································································· C1

cycle of Team UAH “PHOENIX”
ii
Executive Summary
UAHuntsville (UAH) is located in Huntsville, Alabama. Our
institution was founded in 1961 as a training facility for NASA’s
scientists and engineers to support the growing aerospace science and
missile fields. We are the anchor tenant in the second largest research
park in the United States. Our current enrollment is 7,376.
This year’s entry is called PHOENIX which symbolizes
resurrection, as well as something that is beautiful, rare, and unique. Our
logo, shown to the right, symbolizes the life cycle of Team UAH and
depicts how we intend to carry the ashes of our previous incarnations to
the winner’s circle in Johnstown, PA.
Although our teams placed 4th
in our conference concrete canoe
competition in 2011, 2nd
in 2012, and 2nd
in 2013, the tail feathers of the
logo represent the five national titles that our predecessors earned while
representing the Southeast Conference sixteen times at that level.
During the past 29 years, our teams pioneered computer generated
mold production, the use of graphite for reinforcement, multi-layered
composite sections, high stiffness ratios, dynamic tuning, and post
processing pre-impregnated materials within a pre-cured matrix. They stressed the importance of section design
based on flexural strength; and, capitalized on atomic bonding and molecular interaction to produce a new
generation of high performance cementitious composites. This year, we developed what promises to be a
revolutionary game changing technology; and, the seven pairs of wing feathers on our logo represent the wide
spectrum of innovations that we made to help us soar to victory; namely,
 Management: We reduced person-power by 63% over last year by redesigning our organizational structure
for greater efficiency; and, depicted our organizational structure with a Venn diagram.
 Hull Design and Structural Analysis: We made modifications to the bow and stern of our canoe, designed a
splash guard to reduce spillage, and incorporated a seat rail to help keep us and our seats in proper
alignment while racing. We calculated design specifications based on an unreinforced concrete section.
 Mix Design: We developed a multilevel material approach to select cementitious materials, aggregates, and
admixtures in the absence of a baseline; and, used spherical binders and aggregates to enrich homogeneity.
 Concrete Testing: We developed an efficiency equation to obtain a parameter for comparing our trial mixes.
 Structural Design: We designed a lightweight, reinforced core which allowed us to accurately position
reinforcement and maintain dimensional stability while reducing weight over an unreinforced canoe.
 Canoe Construction: We introduced game changing ideas and reduced material costs by 36% over last year.
 Sustainability: We treated sustainability as a macro concept that applied broadly to our entire infrastructure,
thereby expanding our efforts to incorporate this concept into this competition (Princeton Review 2010).
The concrete properties used for design purposes are listed in Table 1.0; other properties, such as tensile and
compressive strengths, are discussed in the section labeled “Testing” on page 6.
Table 1.0 Pertinent information. Canoe Name: “PHOENIX” School: UAHuntsville (UAH)
Physical Attributes
[Canoe]
Engineering Properties
[Concrete Mix]
Primary Reinforcement
[C-Grid]
Mass (Wt): 61.2 kg (135 lb) - Estimated Unit Weight (Wet): 817 kg/m
3
(51.0 lb/ft
3
) Composition: Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Resin
Maximum Length: 6.7 m (22 ft) Unit Weight (Dry): 639 kg/m
3
(39.9 lb/ft
3
) Tensile Modulus: 234 GPa (34 Msi)
Maximum Width: 86.4 cm (34.0 in.) Flexural Modulus: 345 MPa (50 ksi) Tensile Strength: 2.0 GPa (290 ksi)
Maximum Depth: 29.0 cm (11.4 in.) 7-day Flexural Strength: 3.86 MPa (560 psi) Percentage Open Area: 68%
Average Thickness: 16.5 mm (0.65 in.) Secondary Reinforcement (4)
Predominate Colors: Blue and White Poly(Vinyl Alcohol) (PVA) Micro Fibers, Steel Wire Mesh, Wood Screws, Staples
2001
1993 1994
1996 1998
PHOENIX
Team UAH

1
We focused on teamwork and strengthened our inner circle to produce “PHOENIX“.
Our four basic goals were: to seek optimal solutions, maximize our team’s
performance, minimize our mistakes, and win this competition.
Management: At our first chapter meeting, key
stakeholders including last year’s officers, our faculty
advisors, and alumni served as a coordinating committee
which outlined key roles and goals for the Chapter.
Before officer elections were held, each candidate was
asked to make a presentation highlighting their plans for
supporting the Chapter including recruiting and training
new members. After the election, an officers’ meeting
was held during which the newly elected officials
developed and refined a strategic game plan to win this
competition. Due to the small size of our group, they
decided to use a systems approach to look at the project
holistically to see where the overlaps and interactions
lay. Then, they asked the coordinating committee to help
us redesign our organizational structure to achieve
greater efficiency (see the Venn diagram on page 2).
Planning: The Chapter formulated four teams. After
selecting PHOENIX as our theme, we asked the
coordinating committee to help us manage the scope and
monitor project status, budget, and to take corrective
actions throughout the stint. Then, we worked together
as Team UAH to execute the tasks at hand.
Teambuilding: We followed the team building
approach developed by other teams at UAH (Inscape
2014; Bentley 2014) to learn how to interact efficiently
by utilizing each other’s strengths and compensating for
each other’s weaknesses. We realized that championship
teams use adversity as glue to bond while mediocre
teams use it as a wedge to divide. As a result, we focused
on teamwork and strengthened our inner circle by
staying honest, positive, insulated, and confident.
Critical Path: The Venn diagram allowed us to
visualize organizational relationships which were used to
assign responsibilities. Milestones consisting of 1) Hull
Design, 2) Structural Analysis, 3) Mix Design, 4) Canoe
Construction, and 5) Documentation, were established
and a critical path was determined by defining tasks that
had no leeway (float). We studied the projected duration
of each task, overlapping activities in the schedule, and
the milestones experienced by previous teams, and then
modified our schedule to minimize the risks of overrun.
The milestones and critical path are displayed on our
project schedule (see page 9). Each major milestone
marked a significant transitional event for the project. To
date, we have completed all tasks according to schedule.
Risk Management: Recognizing the possibility that
future events may cause adverse effects, we adopted a
policy of continuous risk management (Dorofee et al.
1996). We used our global communication network (see
page 2) to identify, analyze, plan, track, and control risk
and applied the underlying principles for decision-
making in many phases of the project ranging from
structural design to concrete canoe construction.
Resource Allocation: We prepared and distributed
a professional fundraising packet that showcased our
Chapter’s contributions to the local Civil and
Environmental Engineering community. The majority of
the materials required for mold and concrete canoe
construction (see page 10, Appendix C, and Fig. 5 on
page 7) were either salvaged or donated. We spent an
additional $424 on materials and supplies. Person-hours
were compiled for each major activity prior to the
conference competition: 15 for hull design, 30 for
structural analysis, 300 for mix design and structural
testing, and 350 for construction. We spent
approximately 400 hours during this period on tasks
including management, fundraising, and documentation
(see Fig. 6 on page 8). Although not counted toward
project management time, our crew team spent 750
hours training and paddling on the pond and in the pool.
Quality Control: Our quality control program relied
on training sessions and advanced planning for quality
assurance. Everyone was asked to attend informational
sessions to ensure a consistent level of education and
experience. Tasks such as proportioning materials were
completed in advance to ensure efficiency throughout
the placement process. Inspectors carefully monitored
progress, since we developed a new approach to produce
a hull of uniform thickness.
Safety: We stressed the responsibility of working
safely, required at least two team members to be present
at all times, used protective equipment, and followed
OSHA guidelines (OSHA 2014). Project managers
reviewed the MSDS for all of the materials that we used.
Project Management

2
The idea for depicting our organizational structure by a Venn diagram came from
one of our past presidents. The diagram was created by a faculty member who served
as an ACSE faculty advisor for the past 40 years at Wisconsin and UAH.
The project revolves around Team UAH, and team members who contributed to
the design and construction of our concrete canoe. As depicted, we organized ourselves into four different teams:
project management, project engineering, presentation, and crew. Together, we focused on two main tasks: concrete
canoe construction and competition readiness. The subtasks required to address them are highlighted in yellow.
We used our websites, Facebook, cell phones, and email accounts to maintain the global communication
network depicted by the black outer circle. Sustainability was treated as a macro concept that applied broadly to the
entire infrastructure and the project as a whole. As described later, we embraced responsibility for our actions and
encouraged a positive impact through our activities on both the environment and our stakeholders.
Organization Chart

3
Parametric analysis techniques and commercially available software (Vacanti 2014)
were used to design a canoe that had the correct weight, and balance of speed, tracking
and maneuverability to achieve maximum performance in two- and four-person races.
We used the unique hull design developed by last
year’s team (Team UAH 2013) and added a splash guard
and seat rail to optimize performance. The streamlined
shape of PHOENIX and its attributes are shown in Fig.
1. Applicable dimensions are listed in Table 1.0 on page
ii, and form dimensions are given on page 10.
The asymmetrical shape was designed to satisfy
conflicting objectives (Ibrahim and Grace 2010). To
increase speed over our 2012 entry, last year’s team
lengthened the hull by 9.1 cm (3.6 in.). They used soft
chines to lower the prismatic coefficient and reduce the
wetted area, reduced the depth of the bow to improve
ergonomics and reduce weight, and increased the rocker
to 7.6 cm (3 in.) to improve maneuverability.
The rounded bottom increased maneuverability while
the canoe’s flared wall reduced the waterline width. The
flare also improved final stability, since the righting
moment was much higher than that achieved in 2012.
It was determined that a combined mass (weight)
[boat and crew] equal to 159 kg (350 lb) would be
required to have sufficient draft [8.9 cm (3.5 in.)] for the
hull to perform properly. Together with correct trim, and
hydrodynamic stability, this minimum weight allows the
hull to displace water efficiently and gives the largest
possible waterline length, the square root of which is
directly proportional to the hull speed.
Typical performance predictions are illustrated in
Figs. 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the result obtained by
mounting strain gages on paddles. This method was used
to measure the stroke rate and the forces generated by all
of our teams. The yellow ellipses on Fig. 3 pinpoint the
regimes in which we expect them to perform.
To improve our racing skills, we recorded videos of
our teams and scrutinized others taken of our major
competitors. These studies helped us learn how to vary
our stroke and return rates so that we drive quickly
toward hull speed, make better turns, and switch more
efficiently to reduce deceleration. Other video studies,
conducted with the aid of markers on our outfits, allowed
us to adjust our paddling style and paddler positions to
minimize detrimental effects such as rolling and
pitching.
Figure 2. Typical paddler output (men’s team).
Figure 1. PHOENIX hull shape and attributes. Figure 3. Performance predictions (all teams).
Hull Design

4
We determined the structural and material requirements for our design based on a
service load derived from strain gage data. Specifications were based on the rules, a
target weight, and the flexure formula for an unreinforced concrete cross section.
Service Loads: Different teams’ choices of critical
parameters such as combined weight, paddler positions,
paddling style, choice of materials, composite lay-up,
and means of transport make their boats’ hydrodynamic
and structural performances very
different. In the past, UAH team
members mounted strain gages
on concrete and composite
canoes at critical locations
reported by our competitors
(University of Wisconsin 2014).
After testing their boats under
transport and racing conditions, our teams proved
that the peak strain occurs directly beneath the bow
paddler in the men’s endurance race. Transport
conditions included when the canoe was supported: 1) by
foam pads placed underneath it in our trailer, 2) at mid
span while on our transport vehicle, and 3) at the ends
while right side up during launch and float testing. They
modeled their critical sections by pure bending and
loaded test plates, having a cross section identical to that
used in the canoe, until the critical strain was reached.
Despite significant differences in hull composition and
shape, they all found that the critical service load was
equivalent to a 0.28 N-m (2.5 in-lb) moment applied to a
2.54 cm (1.0 in.) wide plate.
Composite Lay-Up: When building a concrete
canoe, knowledge of the concrete’s compressive strength
is not as critical as it is in other applications. Since load
reversals take place and cracks need to be prevented, it is
the flexural strength and elastic modulus of the
cementitious matrix as well as the bond strength between
the matrix and the reinforcement that impact the design
most. Material symmetry is important (Vaughan and
Gilbert 2001) and, for a given geometrical configuration,
the stiffness ratio of the reinforcement to the matrix
controls the stress transfer (Biszick and Gilbert 1999).
We envisioned reinforcing our canoe with a graphite
C-grid that consisted of 1.27 mm (0.05 in.) thick, 7.62
mm wide (0.3 in.) fiber toes on 4.57 cm (1.8 in.) x 4.06
cm (1.6 in.) centers (see Table 1.0 on page ii for material
properties). Fibers would be aligned along the principal
stress directions. We planned to employ a flotation frame
to space two layers of the grid at a vertical distance of
6.35 mm (0.25 in.) apart, to produce the reinforced core
for the double-reinforced section (Biszick et al. 2013)
illustrated in Fig. 4. We selected a hull
thickness of 15.24 mm (0.6 in.)
based on our construction
scenario and requirements
imposed on the minimum
reinforcement to wall
thicknesses ratio (see Section
4.3.1; NCCC Rules 2014). The outer
concrete layers were added to help prevent us
from sanding through the reinforcement.
Figure 4. Design for composite cross section.
Since our plan called for building a reinforced core
that was lighter than one made from plain concrete; and,
we assumed that our reinforced section would be
stronger than one having no reinforcement, we based our
concrete density and strength calculations on an
unreinforced section.
Density: We took the weight of the stain, sealer,
graphics, seats, paddles, and paddlers into consideration
and calculated that our unfinished canoe should weigh
approximately 54.4 kg (120 lb) to place our lightest team
at the proper depth to achieve good hull speed, stability,
and wind resistance. Then, we calculated the concrete
density required to achieve this condition [641 kg/m3
(40
lb/ft3
)] based on the thickness 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) and
surface area 1.7 m3
(59.9 ft3
) of our boat.
Strength: We assumed that bending was the primary
mode of loading and applied the flexure formula to a
2.54 cm (1.0 in.) wide by 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) thick
concrete section subjected to a 0.28 N-m (2.5 in-lb)
moment. Under the critical load, the maximum flexural
stress (strength) was 287 kPa (41.6 psi).
We strove to produce a mix
with a density of 641 kg/m3
.
A minimum flexural strength
of 287 kPa is needed based
on an unreinforced section.
Structural Analysis

5
The development of a multilevel material design approach and use of an efficiency
parameter coupled with a 7-day accelerated test program allowed us to exceed our
design specifications. Test results were shocking, since they showed that anomalies
associated with our reinforced section made it weaker than an unreinforced one.
Primary Reinforcement: Last year, our team
developed a revolutionary new construction method in
which they placed their concrete mix around a pre-
impregnated graphite material that they baked at
elevated temperature once their concrete had cured.
Since the rules prevented us from using this approach,
we decided to use a commercially available C-Grid to
reinforce our canoe. According to the manufacturer, the
tensile strength and modulus are 2.0 GPa (290 ksi) and
234 GPa (34 Msi), respectively (Chomarat 2010).
Mix Design: In 2011, our current project engineer
performed a study to investigate the inconsistencies in
strength and material properties that one of our teams
(Team UAH 2010) observed during their stint. He
discovered that internal flaws created weaknesses which
led to variations in performance and used the method of
Weibull statistics to quantify those (Pinkston 2011).
After tracing the root of the problem to an excessive
dosage of air entrainment admixture, further work was
done on other mixes without this constituent which
revealed that aggregate size and shape also matter.
He challenged us to design a homogeneous,
lightweight and flexible mix, having uniformly sized and
shaped binders and aggregates, that was initially
workable but then set up quickly with good early
strength. It also had to have sufficient flexural strength to
meet our design specifications. Since we did not have a
baseline in our data bank; and, the time and manpower to
design a concrete mix were limited, we developed a
multi-level material design approach and an efficiency
parameter to arrive at our final selection (see Table 3.1,
Appendix B), based on our test results.
Multilevel Material Design: Our multilevel material
design approach involved selecting cementitious
materials first, then the aggregate, and finally fibers and
admixtures to enhance the concrete. Without this
approach, a nearly infinite combination of materials
exists and finding the optimal concrete mix in a timely
manner would have been impossible.
The first step involved selecting the desired
cementitious materials for the concrete based on
maximizing workability and paste volume. We used
Portland cement (ASTM C150) and Class C fly ash
(ASTM C618) as binders in the final mix and made sure
all requirements on mass were satisfied (Section 3.2.1;
NCCC Rules 2014). When mixed with lime and water,
fly ash forms a cementitious compound (Joshi and
Lohtia 1997). Since fly ash particles have a lower
density than cement, their addition lowers weight. They
increase workability, as well as the amount of time
available to place the concrete. This makes it easier to
smooth the surface. Their addition also favorably
impacts environmental sustainability (Yang et al. 2007).
Since fly ash particles are typically a few micrometers in
diameter and nearly spherical in shape (Majko 2007),
they increase bond strength and fill in microscopic voids.
This helps to maintain homogeneity in the cementitious
matrix, and structural integrity in the composite section.
We realized that an aggregate with a higher packing
density would require less cementitious material than
one having more space in between the individual
aggregate particles. Since less cementitious material
means a lighter weight concrete, we selected our
aggregate based on its particle packing density, specific
gravity, and particle shape and size. We chose K1
microspheres (3M 2014a) to decrease density and reduce
particle size. This variety of microspheres has the lowest
density of any of the 3M glass bubbles; K1 are also low
in cost. Since these microspheres are relatively small, it
made it easier for us to smooth the concrete surface.
The final step involved fine tuning the cementitious
matrix by adding fibers and admixtures that conformed
to ASTM standards (ASTM C1116; ASTM 494). We
selected poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) fibers to minimize
debonding and bridge micro-cracks (Xu et al. 2011).
Their hydrophilic nature causes them to bond well with
the cementitious matrix (Wang and Li 2006) due to the
presence of polymer around the fibers (Feldman and
Barbalata 1996). A disadvantage of using the fibers is
that they decrease the homogeneity of the mix (Pinkston
2011); however, this detriment was outweighed by the
high flexural strength that we obtained by adding them.
Development and Testing

6
We selected the admixtures listed in Table 3.1 on
page B1. We added ViscoCrete 2100, a high range water
reducer, at a standard dosage of 355 ml (12 oz) per 45.4
kg (100 lb) of cementitious materials to reduce the
amount of water needed to maintain the desired
workability and improve surface finish (Sika 2013). SBR
Latex was added to enhance the bonding and flexibility
of our matrix (Euclid Chemical 2014). Rheotec Z-60, a
workability retaining admixture, was added at a standard
dosage of 355 ml (12 oz) per 45.4 kg (100 lb) of
cementitious materials to give us the most time possible
to work with the concrete (BASF 2014).
Efficiency Parameter: We selected our final mix
based on an efficiency parameter, E, that we obtained by
modifying an efficiency equation developed for ultra-
high performance concrete (Graybeal 2013) as follows:
The sum is taken over the number of factors to be
considered; is a constant established depending upon
their importance, is the normalized value of the
factor under consideration for the mix in question,
is the average normalized value for that factor over all
mixes considered, is the cost per cubic yard for
the mix under consideration, and is the average
cost per cubic yard for all mixes considered.
We took four factors into consideration: 1) density,
ρ; 2) sustainable content, s, based on the percentage
volume of sustainable material and whether that material
could be obtained locally; 3) flexural strength, σ; and, 4)
workability, w. Since we only considered concrete mixes
having a flexural strength higher than that specified in
the oval on page 4, we associated factors 1-4 with
constants 4,3,2,1, respectively. Specifically, we obtained
our efficiency parameter using:
and selected the mix having the largest value.
Testing: We evaluated 30 trial mixes by testing
unreinforced plates [5.08 cm (2.0 in.) wide by 15.24 cm
(6.0 in.) long by 7.62 mm (0.3 in.) thick]. After allowing
the concrete to cure for seven days, we tested the plates
in pure bending (following
ASTM C78) to get the
concrete flexural strength
and modulus.
After selecting our
final mix, we studied its
micro-mechanical
behavior and failure by pulling tension specimens (based
on ASTM E8 and ASTM D638) from which we obtained
a 7-day tensile strength of 1.31 MPa (190 psi). As can be
seen in the second column of Table 1.0 on page ii, we
obtained a 7-day flexural strength and modulus, and
measured the wet and dry unit weights (ASTM C138).
Since cylinders tested at 7 days did not accurately reflect
the compressive strength, we tested them at 28 days
(ASTM C39) and obtained 4.48 MPa (650 psi). As seen
in Appendix B, we computed the air content (7.6%), and
measured the slump at 2.54 cm (1.0 in.) (ASTM C143).
Design Requirements: We constructed composite
samples by placing our final mix over two layers of C-
Grid spaced apart at the distance illustrated in Fig. 4 on
page 4. We accurately positioned these layers through
the thickness by using removable spacers, as opposed to
using the flotation frame shown in the figure. When we
tested 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) thick, 4.06 cm (1.6 in.) wide
plates in pure bending, they resisted an average moment
of 5.5 N-m (48.8 in-lb), giving us a factor of safety of
12.2.
As described next in the Construction section (see
pages 7 and 8), we designed and built a flotation frame
to accurately position the two layers of C-grid, and
reduce the weight of PHOENIX to the point where,
when reinforced with the heavier graphite grids, our
canoe was lighter than one made with just our final mix.
Revelations: Since our mix has a flexural modulus
of only 345 MPa (50 ksi), it is an excellent choice for
building our doubly-reinforced section where stress
transfer takes place. Remarkably, the mix is so strong
that by placing it at a thickness of 15.24 mm (0.6 in.), we
could have produced an unreinforced canoe having a
factor of safety of 13.3. However, the larger deflection
would have made it difficult to maintain hydrodynamic
stability and dimensional tolerances. Nonetheless, we
were shocked that the safety factor for the unreinforced
section was higher than that for the reinforced one. We
attributed the reduction in strength to poor bonding and
anomalies created when we added the reinforcement to
the concrete; and, plan to investigate these hypotheses in
the future.

7
While constructing PHOENIX, we fabricated a reinforced core which included a
flotation frame. Then, we produced a hull of uniform thickness by employing methods
for quality control. We also used risk management, always paying attention to safety.
Introduction: As mentioned previously, we intend to
carry the ashes of our previous incarnations to the
winner’s circle in Johnstown, PA. Consistent with this
philosophy; and, as part of our sustainability effort, we
decided to make our own refinements but use last year’s
form. Our contributions to the hull design include
modifications to the bow and stern, the addition of an
improved splash guard, and a seat rail. Our biggest
challenge was to design and build a reinforced core to
lighten, stiffen, and strengthen our concrete canoe.
Mold Construction: The design for our canoe was
rendered using Solid Edge. The program runs on
Microsoft Windows and provides solid modeling,
assembly modeling, and drafting functionality (Siemens
2014). After determining the final shape of our hull, last
year’s team generated full-scale computer cross sections
at 30.48 cm (12 in.) intervals along the length. Then they
used the drawings to produce plywood templates and
mounted and aligned them on a wooden strongback.
They constructed a male mold by first nailing 6.35
mm (0.25 in.) thick luan strips to the cross sections over
the majority of the length and then fitting foam blocks at
the bow and stern. After placing a fiberglass layer over
the strips and blocks, the team progressively refined the
shape. They worked under subdued lighting so that
spotlighting could be used to identify problem areas.
These were marked, filled with drywall, and sanded until
all discontinuities were removed (Team UAH 2013).
Overall, the mold was in good shape but the bow and
stern sections suffered damage during form removal. We
removed these sections and refined them to improve the
hydrodynamics. Then, we attached pine boards along the
sides of the mold to define the location of our gunwale.
The bill of materials included on the design drawing
(see page 10) lists the materials used to produce the
form. We added the photographs around the border to
illustrate and clarify our teams’ construction techniques.
Core Construction: We designed and built a
reinforced core to accurately position our primary
reinforcement, reduce the overall weight of our canoe,
and help us maintain structural integrity. We began the
process by soaking 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) thick pine strips
in water, then contouring them to the mold to produce
wooden stringers in the transverse direction at 38.1 cm
(15 in.) intervals along the length. Several longitudinal
stringers were fabricated using a similar process. After
they dried, the stringers were notched and glued to
produce a 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) thick flotation frame.
To produce the reinforced core, our team placed a
layer of C-grid on the mold and cut and contoured it to
shape. We used string to temporarily hold the splices in
place as we positioned the flotation frame over this layer.
Then, we contoured and stapled the outer layer of C-grid
to the flotation frame along the majority of its length.
We used a steel mesh in the bow and stern sections so
that they could be more easily contoured.
We used tie wires to temporarily hold the inner layer
of C-grid in place while we removed the core. After this
was done, we stapled the inner layer of C-grid to the
flotation frame while removing the tape, string, and tie
wires. During this process, we made certain that there
were no opposing staples in the same location so that we
could accurately compute the reinforcement thickness.
The 8.89 mm (0.35 in.) thick core weighed 51.3 kg
(23.2 lb) while the percentage open areas of the primary
reinforcement and flotation frame were 68% and 58%,
respectively. When filled with concrete having a density
of 639 kg/m3
(39.9 lb/ft3
), the core weighs 145 kg (65.6
lb) which represents a weight savings of 8.8 kg (4 lb)
over an unreinforced section of the same thickness.
Figure 5. Material costs ($1,530).
Construction

8
This savings may not seem significant but when one
considers that we were able to do this while adding
substantially heavier reinforcement to sufficiently stiffen
and strengthen our boat, it is a game changing idea.
Quality Control: Our quality control program relied
on training sessions and advanced planning for quality
assurance. Everyone involved was required to attend
informational sessions to ensure a consistent level of
education, experience, and attention to detail. Tasks such
as proportioning materials were completed in advance to
ensure efficiency and minimize waste throughout
placement. Inspectors continuously monitored the
construction process to ensure quality control.
Canoe Construction: We began concrete canoe
construction by draping a sheet of plastic over the mold
to which we applied turtle wax and a mold release
compound. Then, we secured 2.36 mm (0.093 in.)
diameter wires across the mold at 15.2 cm (6.0 in.)
intervals down the length.
During concrete canoe construction, we prepared
several small batches of our concrete mix by using a
mechanical mixer to achieve better homogeneity and
reduce the water content, thereby strengthening our
concrete. We also timed the delivery of constituents,
selected the proper mixing tools, and adjusted the mixing
speed so that materials were dispersed evenly. We used a
wire whip and high speed mixing to prevent our
cementitious materials from clumping, thereby
preventing dry particles from forming within the cement
paste. For safety, we prevented microspheres from
becoming airborne by mixing them with SBR latex, and
used a low shear attachment to prevent breakage based
on recommendations from the manufacturer (3M 2014b).
Once the concrete was ready, some of our team
members used drywall knives to level it to the upper
surface of the wires. At the same time, other team
Figure 6. Project person-hours (1,095).
members placed concrete
on the underside of the
core so that when it was
positioned on the mold,
there would be no voids.
We left the wires in place
to insure that the inner
concrete layer would be of uniform thickness as we
worked the core into position. After filling the latter to
capacity with concrete, we secured another set of 2.36
mm (0.093 in.) diameter wires across the mold at 15.2
cm (6.0 in.) intervals down the length. When the layer
cured to firmness, we removed the wires, filled the
grooves, and draped plastic over the configuration. For
the purposes of this competition, we also placed concrete
cylinders (ASTM C31).
Since the latex in our mix coalesced to form a film
that coated the aggregate particles and the hydrating
cement grains (Biszick and Gilbert 1999), we simply left
the canoe and cylinders to dry. From sustainability and
cost standpoints, this step saves water, time, and labor.
After only three days, the outer layer of concrete was
hand-sanded smooth. Then, we filled voids with the
same mix used during the main construction and sanded
after dark in soft lighting so that the shadows cast from
oblique illumination could help us identify high and low
areas. Sanding the boat earlier saves materials and costs.
We cured the canoe for seven days so that the
concrete would have the same flexural strength as that
measured in our 7-day testing program. After removing
it from the mold, we removed the spacer wires from the
inner surface, filled the grooves, and added the seat rail.
We sanded the interior and applied vinyl lettering
and stain to improve the boat’s aesthetics. Then, we
added flotation to the bow and stern, placed the splash
guard, and sealed the surface. Appendix C describes all
the materials and products used to produce our canoe.
The pie charts shown in Figs. 5 and 6 depict the material
costs and person-hours, respectively. We estimated
person-hours through project completion; paddling is not
included. Compared to last year, we reduced our material
costs by 36% and our person-hours by 63%.
Impact: During the project, we salvaged materials,
and cut waste to a minimum. Our concrete sets up
quickly and can be simply left to dry thereby saving cost
and labor. The use of the reinforced core cut construction
time. Overall, the process can be easily done in the field
making it suitable for applications ranging from
sidewalks and roadways, to bridges and columns.

10
Design Drawing with Bill of Materials
PHOENIX

A1
ASTM C31. (2012). “Standard practice for making and curing concrete test specimens
in the field.” C31/C31M-12. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11
February 2014).
ASTM C39. (2012). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens.”
C39/C39M-12a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C78. (2010). “Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third-point
loading).” C78/C78M-10e1. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C138. (2013). “Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air content (gravimetric) of
concrete.” C138/C138M-13a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C143. (2012). “Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete.” C143/C143M-12. West
Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C150. (2012). “Standard specification for Portland cement.” C150M-12. West Conshohocken, PA.
< http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C494. (2012). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete.” C494M-12. West
Conshohocken, PA, < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C618. (2012). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in
concrete.” C618-12a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM C1116. (2010). “Standard specification for fiber-reinforced concrete.” ASTM C1116/C1116M-10a. West
ASTM D638. (2010). “Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics.” D638-10. West Conshohocken, PA.
< http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).
ASTM E8. (2013). “Standard test method for tensile properties of metallic materials.” E8/E8M-13a. West
BASF. (2014). “RheoTEC™ Z-60.” < http://www.caribbean.basf-cc.com/en/products/Admixtures/High-
Range_Water-Reducing/RheoTEC_Z-60/Documents/RheoTEC-Z60-Eng.pdf > (11 February 2014).
Bentley, J. (2014). “Training and development, DISC personality tests, corporate training.” Power2Transform
(P2T). < http://www.power2transform.com > (11 February 2014).
Biszick, K.R., Gilbert, J.A. (1999). “Designing thin-walled, reinforced concrete panels for reverse bending." Proc.
of the 1999 SEM Spring Conference on Theoretical, Experimental and Computational Mechanics, Cincinnati, Ohio,
June 7-9, 431-434.
Appendix A - References

A2
Biszick, K.R., Gilbert, J.A., Toutanji, H., Britz, M.T. (2013). “Doubly reinforcing
cementitious beams with instrumented hollow carbon fiber tendons.” Experimental
Mechanics, 53(4), ISSN 0014-4851, doi: 10.1007/s11340-012-9665-6.
Chomarat (2010). “C50 – 1.8 x 1.6 carbon fiber reinforcing grids for concrete structures.” Technical data sheet.
<http://www.chomarat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/C50-1.8x1.6.pdf> (11 February 2014).
Dorofee, A.J., Walker, J.A., Alberts, C.J., Higuera, R.P., Murphy, R.L., Williams, R.C. (1996). “Continuous risk
management guidebook.” Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.
<http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/Continuous%20Risk%20Management%20Guidebook.pdf> (11 February
2014).
Euclid Chemical. (2014). “SBR Latex bonding adhesive.”
< http://www.euclidchemical.com/fileshare/ProductFiles/techdata/sbr_latex.pdf > (11 February 2014).
Feldman, D., Barbalata, A. (1996). “Synthetic polymers: Technology, properties, applications.” Chapman and Hall,
London, 101.
Graybeal, B., “Development of non-proprietary ultra-performance concrete for use in the highway bridge sector.”
US Department of Transportation, FHWA-HRT-13-060.
< http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/resources/uhpc/publications.cfm > (11 February 2014).
Ibrahim, R.A., Grace, I.M. (2010). “Modeling of ship roll dynamics and its coupling with heave and pitch.”
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2010, Article ID 934714, 32 pages, doi:10.1155/2010/934714.
Inscape. (2014). “DISC personality test profile.” Inscape Publishing.
< http://www.onlinediscpersonalityprofile.com/ > (11 February 2014).
Joshi, R.C., Lohtia, R.P. (1997). “Fly ash in concrete, production, properties and uses.” Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Majko, R.M. (2007). “Fly ash resource center,” information on coal combustion byproducts (CCBs).”
< https://sites.google.com/site/flyashresourcecenter/home/flyash-html> (11 February 2014).
NCCC Rules. (2014). “2014 American Society of Civil Engineers national concrete canoe competition rules and
regulations.” < http://www.asce.org/concretecanoe/rules-regulations/> (11 February 2014).
OSHA. (2014). “Laboratories”; “Hazard communication”; “Construction, concrete masonry”; “Personal protective
equipment”; “Ventilation.” < http://www.osha.gov > (11 February 2014).
Pinkston, M.E. (2011). “Quantitative evaluation of polymer-enhanced cementitious materials. M.S. Thesis,
University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Princeton Review. (2010). “Guide to 286 green colleges.” Rob Franek Publisher, Framingham, MA, 127.

A3
Siemens. (2014). “Solid Edge.”
< http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/ > (11
February 2014).
Sika. (2013). “ViscoCrete 2100.” Product data sheet.
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%
3A%2F%2Fusa.sika.com%2Fdms%2Fgetdocument.get%2F89b7c847-c480-3324-989c-f7e29de95099%2Fpds-cpd-
Sika%2520ViscoCrete%25202100-
us.pdf&ei=BuH6UrjnLfC10AHvwIEw&usg=AFQjCNHKP5upVMtLuTqDsBh9931gvr2bQg&bvm=bv.61190604,
d.dmQ> (11 February 2014).
Team UAH. (2010). “SUPER CHARGER.” University of Alabama in Huntsville ASCE concrete canoe
competition design paper.”
< http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2010-UAH.pdf>. (11 February 2014).
Team UAH. (2013). “APOLLO.” University of Alabama in Huntsville ASCE concrete canoe competition design
paper.”
< http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/ASCE/2013Nationals/UAHDesignPaper.pdf > (11 February
2014).
3M. (2014a). “3M™ glass bubbles K1 for cryogenic insulation applications.” Product information.
< http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs66ssr1COrrrrQ-> (11 February 2014).

A4
3M. (2014b). “3M™ glass bubbles – Metering and mixing guide.”
<http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UF6EVsSyXTtlXM
6LxfVEVtQEVs6EVs6EVs6E666666--
&fn=metermixguideGB.pdf&cshift_ck=null&client_id=752rfn6820 > (11 February 2014).
University of Wisconsin. (2014). “NCCC design papers 2000-present.”
< http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/designpapers.html> (11 February 2014).
Vacanti. (2014). “PROLINES 7.” < http://vacantisw.com/DemoSoftware.aspx > (11 February 2014).
Vaughan, R.E., Gilbert, J.A. (2001). “Analysis of graphite reinforced cementitious composites.” Proc. of the 2001
SEM Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 4-6, 532-535.
Wang, SX., Li, V.C. (2006). “Polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced engineered cementitious composites: material
design and performances.” Proc. International RILEM Workshop on High Performance Fiber Reinforced
Cementitious Composites in Structural Applications RILEM Publications SARL, In: Fischer, G., and Li, V.C.
editors, RILEM Publications SARL, 65-73.
Xu, B., Toutanji, H.A., Lavin, T., Gilbert, J.A. (2011). “Characterization of poly(vinyl alcohol) fiber reinforced
organic aggregate cementitious materials.” Polymers in Concrete, 666, 73-83.
Yang, E., Yang, Y., Li, V.C. (2007). “Use of high volumes of fly ash to improve ECC mechanical properties and
material greenness.” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 303-311.

B1
Table 3.1
Summary of Mixture Proportions
Team UAH 2014
Appendix B - Mixture Proportions

C1
Table 6.1
Bill of Materials and Production Cost Estimate
Team UAH 2014
Appendix C - Bill of Materials

UAH 2014 Design Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to UAH 2014 Design Paper

Similar to UAH 2014 Design Paper (20)

UAH 2014 Design Paper