TABLE OF CONTENTS T

Table of ContentsTable of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………….iExecutive Summary …..………………………………………………………………………….……………….ii Project Management ……………………………………………………………………………………………....1Organization Chart …………………………………………………………………….………………………...2Hull Design and Structural Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………3-4Development and Testing ………………………………………………………………………...…………….5-7Construction …………………………………………………………………….………………...………………8-9Project Schedule ………………………………………………………………….………..………………….10Design Drawing ………………………………………………………………...……..……………………...11

AppendicesAppendix A: References ……………………………………………………………….…………...…………A-1Appendix B: Mixture Proportions …………………………………………………………………..…………..B-1Appendix C: Bill of Materials ……………………………………………………………...……………….C-1Appendix D: Example Structural Calculation …………………………………………………………...….D-1

TablesTable 1. Canoe Properties ………………………………………………………………………………………iiTable 2. Concrete and Reinforcement Properties ……………………………………………………………....iiTable 3. Major Milestones ……………………………………………………………..………………………..1Table 4. Hull Design Parameters …………………………………………………………..…………………..4Table 5. Factor of Safety of Shear and Moment …………………………………………………………...….4Table 6. Mix Design Chart …………………………………………………………..…………………………..6

FiguresFigure 1. Distribution of Man Hours ……………………………………………………………………...……….1Figure 2. Total Budget ……………………………………………………………….……………………...1Figure 3. Prolines 7 Canoe Isometric and Cross Section ……………..………………………………………..3Figure 4. Shear and Moment Diagram …………………………………………………………………........4Figure 5. Iteration Process ………………………………………………………………………………………5Figure 6. Thickness of Wiremesh …………………………………………………………...………………….7Figure 7. Wiremesh Grid ………………………………………………………………………………………7Figure 8. Concrete Breaker Test ………………………………………………………….…………………...7Figure 9. 28-Day Strength …………………………………………………………..…………………………..7Figure 10. Slab Bending Test ………………………………………………………………………………………8Figure 11. Canoe Layers ………………………………………………………………………………………8Figure 12. Application of Concrete …………………………………………………………….………………...9

i

Executive Summary Lipscomb University is a private Christian university that was founded in 1891. It is located in Nashville,

Tennessee and is home to 4,500 undergraduate and graduate students. The civil engineering program has 35 students and became accredited for the first time in August of 2014. This is Lipscomb University’s first time participating in ASCE’s Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe competition. Lipscomb University is an “intentionally, courageously, and graciously” Christian institution. Genesis is the first book of the Bible, and since this is Lipscomb’s first time competing in ASCE’s concrete canoe competition, Genesis was selected as the team name and the theme.

Team Genesis faced many unique challenges because this was Lipscomb’s first year competing. We are indebted to the two university teams that have assisted Lipscomb in the learning process. Team Genesis traveled to the University of Evansville in early October to meet with their concrete canoe leaders. They shared ideas and experience they had gained over the years, as well as allowed Team Genesis to view some of their canoes from previous years. Vanderbilt University has also given advice to Team Genesis, especially regarding casting the canoe. Team Genesis has relied heavily on computational modeling and multi-disciplinary analysis optimization to arrive at our final canoe design. The design and analysis required the integration of four interconnected components: hull design, structural analysis, structural design, and concrete mix design. Hull design was conducted in Prolines7, a yacht design software, and prioritized stability while also making the canoe hydro dynamically streamlined. Structural design consisted of both the structural analysis and the strength design, which were conducted in Excel. In the structural analysis, external forces and waterlines were identified, and the internal shear and bending were calculated. The strength design determined an adequate wall thickness and reinforcement details to provide a required factor of safety. Different concrete mixes were tested with various admixtures and aggregates to find lightweight yet strong concrete. The analyses were repeated until convergence at the final design parameters. The design parameters for the canoe are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

The canoe was constructed by using sustainable practices. 30 percent of the volume of cementitious material was replaced with fly ash and latex. 90 percent of the volume of the aggregates consisted of recycled glass microspheres. Furthermore, the team relied heavily on computational modeling to optimize the design of the canoe, which allowed the team to perform prototyping experiments without constructing multiple canoes.Canoe Quick FactsName Color Length (ft) Max. Width (in) Max. Depth (in) Weight (lbs) Thickness (in)Genesis Nighttime 18.67 2.67 1.75 450 0.75

A major goal of this team is that Lipscomb University would continue to participate in Concrete Canoe in subsequent years. To facilitate this, each design leader has an understudy who will step into a leadership role next year. Additionally, a legacy code with commentary and manuals is being written which details the steps that were taken in the design process. Many of the spreadsheets, drawings, etc. will be available for future teams to aid in their design.

ReinforcementCompressive Strength (psi)

Wet Unit Wt. (lbs/ft^3)

Dry Unit Wt. (lbs/ft^3) Yield (lb/in)

4305 1.36 TBD 1000

Concrete

Table 1: Canoe Properties

Table 2: Concrete and Reinforcement Properties

Project Management The project management team’s objective was to oversee team Genesis efforts to build a strong and durable

canoe through developing and controlling a clear schedule, formulating a detailed statement of work, managing safety assurances, and performing extensive and strict quality and budgetary control. The Project Manager (PM) and Assistant Project Manager (APM) organized team Genesis into seven divisions specializing in hull design, structural analysis, concrete mix design, construction, safety, aesthetics and academics. Each division had a team leader and most had an underclassman understudy. The time spent in in man hours for the Safety team was 20 hours. Construction spent 154 hours, the mix design spent 112 hours and the structural analysis spent 196 hours. Team Genesis focused on these

five areas to effectively and efficiently conquer the project. To ensure a clear schedule layout team Genesis coordinated a day each week to review the previous week's objectives and

to look ahead for the upcoming week's tasks. Every team leader maintained and managed a two week analysis of each of their members. The project manager speculated potential setbacks in the schedule and added other teams or extra days, if needed, to the questionable tasks in order for complete satisfaction. The major milestones in Figure 1 blended with the six teams so that the distribution of work and overall completion could be accomplished in the appropriate amount of time. The Critical path contained the completion of the hull design, concrete mix design, structural

analysis, construction and report. On page 10 team Genesis explains the schedule in detail. Microsoft Project determined the critical path as the shortest amount of activities to complete the project.

Major Milestones Scheduled Completion Date Actual Completion DateResearch 2015 Concrete CanoeRules 9/17/2014 9/17/2014Hull Design 10/30/2014 11/26/2015Waterline Iteration 10/23/2015 11/19/2014Structural Analysis 12/5/2014 PresentMold Purchase 11/16/2014 11/16/2014Specific Gravity Iteration 11/28/2014 11/28/2015Mix Testing and Design 11/13/2014 1/15/2015Casting Canoe 1/20/2015 1/28/2015Report 3/1/2015 2/1/2015Astehetics 3/4/2015 To be determined

Table 3. Major Milestones

Since 2015 is Lipscomb University’s first year, problems occurred frequently with the hull design and structural analysis. The due date for the final hull design was pushed back two weeks. More members were assigned to the task and therefore, the work could be distributed in in smaller sections with less time needed to finalize the hull design. The Safety Team required a strict safety assurance by requiring all members associated with team Genesis to abide by two safety procedures. First the Safety Team presented through PowerPoint a summary of the each chemical's Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to each team member. Second a separate handout with detailed lab equipment safety instructions were to be tested through a standardized quiz that each member was required to pass.

In Figure 2 the APM and PM managed a detailed budget of $13,000 to cover the costs from start to finish. The budget contained regional conference expenses, canoe mold, safety materials, computer

ii

program and construction fees. Through local firms and donations through Lipscomb University the team acquired the basic fundamental blocks for the future Lipscomb concrete canoe teams. Through these efforts team Genesis was able to receive through donation a trailer, concrete mix materials and admixtures to minimize costs.

Hull Design The hull design team applied a simulation based design optimization process to select key design parameters to

maximize the hulls performance with respect to several criteria. As the team consists of inexperienced rowers, stability of the canoe and ease of handling are the top priorities, followed by minimization of drag and maximization of the streamline velocity of the canoe. We chose to generate our canoe hull shape by providing the design parameters to Prolines7 and allowing it to determine the coordinates of the hull surface. Prolines7 was used for computation of all key output responses, including tipping angle, maximum velocity, drag coefficient, volume of water displaced, and wetted surface area of the canoe. Isometric and cross-section views of the final hull design generated in Prolines7 are shown in Figure 3.

Response surfaces were generated for each of the Prolines7 outputs. Estimation of the response surface parameters required obtaining data from a well-designed computational experiment to determine the impact of overall length, depth, and wall angle upon each of the Prolines7 output responses. The experimental design required definition of a baseline hull’s overall length, width and location of the widest point, and wall angle. The width and location of the widest point were held constant at 32 inches and at ¾ of the length from the hull tip, respectively, throughout all experiments. These decisions were made upon study of several successful hulls from other universities in past years of the National Concrete Canoe Competition, and analysis of several hulls in Prolines7 showed that these are reasonable design assumptions. Straight walls with a minimal curve were chosen for ease of construction and provided the additional benefit of simplifying structural analysis calculations. Values above and below those of the baseline design were selected for the hull length, wall angle, and depth. A full factorial experimental design was established using three levels each for the hull length, wall angle, and depth. Based on the outputs of the 27 experiments performed in Prolines7, the following response surfaces were obtained:

Tipping Angle=−1847.4+31.5 ( L ) – 49 (α )+9.4 ( D )−.07 ( L2)+ .3 ( α2 )+.03 ( D2 )+.02 ( L∗α )−05 (L∗D )+.01 (α∗D )(1)Drag Force=129.8−.7 (L)−1.02(α )+.1(D)+.001(L2)+.007 (α2)+.003(D2)+ .0004(L∗α )+.002(L∗D)−.009 (α∗D)(2)

Wetted Area=464−3.4 ( L )−1.2 (α )+.4 ( D )+.006 ( L2 )+.014 ( α2 )+.02 ( D2 )+.002 ( L∗α )+.01 (L∗D )−.05 (α∗D )(3)Water Displaced=15308−205 ( L )+271 (α )−152 (D )+.4 ( L2 )−1.6 (α 2 )+.5 ( D2 )+.11 ( L∗α )+.7 ( L∗D )−.5 (α∗D )(4)

Prediction testing was performed to validate the relationships in Eqs. (1)-(4) by evaluating responses at numerous values of hull length, wall angle and depth not used as training data for the regression models. A percent error of less than 10 percent was found for each equation, and Eqs. (1)-(4) were deemed acceptable for use in design optimization. In order to design the hull, the hull analysis team solved the multi-objective optimization problem:

Figure 3. Prolines 7 Canoe Isometric and Cross Section

Figure 4: Shear and Moment DiagramPlot of internal moment and internal shear along the length of the

canoe without paddlers.

MaximizeL , α , D ∑

i=1

5

wi R i ( L , α , D )

s . t .16 ft ≤ L ≥22 ft , 70 °≤ α ≥ 85 ° ,16∈≤ D ≥26∈¿

The hull design team solved the optimization problem repeatedly by varying the weights, w i, for each of the objectives, Ri, and explored the tradeoffs amongst the competing objectives. The hull design team finally chose a canoe with the design parameters shown in Table 4. Upon determination of the canoe’s final mix and structural design the hull was analyzed in Prolines7 to determine performance predictions for the Genesis. These outputs are also given in Table 4.

Structural Analysis The canoe was modeled as a two-dimensional beam with non-prismatic cross sections. In order to make the geometry easier to model, the canoe was divided into 1-ft sections along its length, with each 1-ft section having a constant cross section. External loads on the canoe include: water pressure on bottom of the canoe, water pressure on the side walls of the canoe, weight of the concrete, and weight of paddlers. Team Genesis elected to use Microsoft Excel to calculate waterline elevation and to calculate internal shear and bending moment at every foot along the canoe. The internal shear and moment was found by solving for the reactions acting on that section to put it in equilibrium. Because these reactions are equal and opposite, the internal moment and internal shear acting on a particular 1-ft section acts in the opposite direction on the concurrent 1-ft section. The process of solving for the internal moment and internal shear was carried out along the entire length of the canoe. The Excel Solver was used to determine the waterline elevation on either end of the canoe to enforce the condition of zero shear and moment at the canoe’s free end. Using this method, the waterline for four paddlers was found to be 0.8ft from the bottom of the canoe. The canoe did not need to be analyzed for transportation due to the utilization of the mold for transport.

The strength design code was created to determine how much internal shear and internal moment the canoe could withstand. It was built from the MSJC design equations (ACI 530-14). Three conservative assumptions are built into these equations: all concrete and reinforcement will remain in the elastic region of their respective stress-strain curves, the concrete carries no tension, and the reinforcement carries no compression. Additionally the compressive strength of the concrete is divided by three. Lastly, the internal shear and internal moment resistance of the canoe from the strength design was compared with the expected internal shear and internal moment found in the structural analysis. This gave Team Genesis their factor of safety. Results are summarized in Table 5.

Max Expected Moment, Mmax -313.4 ft*lbsMax Expected Shear, Vmax -124.3 lbsMoment Resistance, MR 6506.1 ft*lbsShear Resistance, VR 1771.5 lbsFactor of Safety (Shear) 14.3 -Factor of Safety (Moment) 20.8 -

Table 4: Hull Design Parameters

Table 5: Factor of Safety of Shear and Moment

3

4

Length (ft) 18.67 Tipping Angle (Deg) 80Depth (in) 18 Wetted Area (ft2) 45.8Width (in) 32 Max Velocity (Knots) 5Wall Angle (Deg)

72 Displaced Water (lbs) 785

Drag Coefficient 0.24

Development and Testing    

Design Development ProcessDevelopment of the canoe’s design and desired material properties relied on the integration of four disciplines, hull

analysis, structural analysis, structural design and mix design. The interactions between these four disciplines are shown in Figure 5. Hull analysis relied on assumed inputs structural analysis (waterline elevation) and mix design (unit weight of concrete). Given the length, depth and wall angle of the canoe, Prolines7 provided estimates of the drag coefficient, tipping angle, wetting area, max velocity and displaced volume and provided hull geometry for structural analysis. Structural analysis relied on inputs from hull analysis (hull geometry), mix design (unit weight of concrete) and structural design (wall thickness). Structural analysis was performed by modeling the canoe as a beam with 1-ft long prismatic sections. Structural analysis provided hull analysis with the waterline elevation and structural design with the shear and moment diagrams. Structural design relied on inputs from structural analysis (shear and moment diagrams), mix design (mix strength properties). Given the wall thickness and reinforcement details, structural analysis provide safety factors of the canoe against flexural and shear failure. Mix design targets were dictated to the mix design team by the structural design team. The canoe design was evaluated by considering

the outputs of Prolines7 and the factor of safety determined by the structural design team.

Because the four main disciplines have feedback coupling it was necessary to start the analysis and design process from several key assumptions. The compressive strength of concrete was assumed to be 2500 psi, and a unit weight of 1.36 was assumed on the basis of the University of Evansville’s 2005 concrete canoe Lembus Durus. The walls were originally assumed to be one inch thick for purposes of hull analysis. Design was performed in an iterative process in which all analysis inputs from other disciplines were updated after each design iteration. The hull analysis found that the preferred geometry, given the team’s priorities, was 19 feet in length and 32 inches wide at its widest point, located at ¾ length of the canoe from the hull tip with a maximum depth of 21 inches. The overall shape was automatically generated in Prolines7 with a wall angle of 72 degrees. The final mix design resulted in a compressive strength of 4305 psi and a unit weight of 1.36. Given the inputs from the final mix design it was found that the canoe would have ample strength with ¾ inch thick walls and two layers of graphite mesh reinforcement. The team decided not to modify the hull geometry, but the team did analyze the hull with its final properties to verify that the design was satisfactory. Mix Design and Materials Selection    The mix design process began with researching other universities past canoe mixes. A wide range of mix designs were researched, including polymer modified concrete and engineering cementitious composites. Team Genesis ultimately decided to start from a conventional canoe mix with lightweight aggregate and acrylic and pozzolanic admixtures. This decision was made because of the need for a lightweight mix with a significant ductility and resistance to curing shrinkage. It was decided to use the University of Evansville’s Lembus Durus mix as a baseline and to design trial mixes to improve upon the baseline while meeting all concrete canoe competition rules and regulations. Because it is expected that the graphite mesh will carry the tensile forces in the concrete canoe, provided that the polymer modified concrete adequately ductile, the desired mix design should have a high compressive strength at a reasonably low specific gravity. The final nine mixes can be found in Table 6.

Figure 5: Iteration Process

5

The use of acrylic (specific gravity 1.06), in place of portland cement (specific gravity 3.15), in the binder allowed for a lighter, more compliant and more ductile concrete without sacrificing compressive strength. The use of microspheres in the aggregate, in place of some natural sand, allowed for a much lighter concrete. Some sand was used in the concrete mix to achieve a desirable consistency and workability. Fly ash is a pozzolanic admixture which will only become calcium silica hydrate (CSH) through reaction with the calcium hydroxide (CH) generated through the hydration of dicalcium silicate (C2S) and tricalcium silicate (C3S). The delayed formation of CSH reduces the heat of hydration controlling both thermal cracking and drying shrinkage. ASTM type I/II portland cement was used since the canoe was to be cured indoors in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. As type I/II portland cement has a higher C2S content and a lower C3S content than type III portland cement and hydrates more slowly than C3S. This is preferred to prevent shrinkage and thermal cracking.

Nine trial mixes were developed by varying the content of the binder and aggregate. Keeping the cement constant throughout, the flyash mass percentage was varied from 16.3 to 20.6 percent and acrylic mass percentages were varied between 7.2 and 10.4 percent. The mass percentage of the microspheres was varied from 25 to 55 percent which in turn varied the mass percentage of sand from 45 to 70 percent. The water-to-cement ratio varied from 0.30 to 0.43. The percent paste by volume was kept constant at 50 percent. The specific gravity of the mixes varied from 1.33 to 1.73 and the 28-day compressive strengths ranged from 2972 psi to 4685 psi. Using less flyash resulted in a lower final compressive strength and if the acrylic was decreased, in addition to the flyash, a significant decrease in strength was noted. When fewer microspheres were used, a thicker, more workable concrete was created however the specific gravity of the concrete was significantly higher. Mix 1 was chosen after consultation with the structural design team. Mix one had a workable consistency which adhered to the sides of the mold without significant sliding or segregation. The team found the mix of natural sand and microspheres in the aggregate to be satisfactory. The binder consisted of a relatively large amount of acrylic, which is expected to provide significant ductility, and a significant amount of flyash, which is expected to delay some of the hydration process.

The graphite mesh used for tensile reinforcement was chosen for its strength while still being lightweight and easy to manipulate. The percent open area (POA) of the reinforcement is 46.0 percent, as see in Eqs. 5 below.

POA=∑ Areaopen

Areatotal∗100 %=3.17¿2

6.89¿2∗100 %=46.0 % (5)

The specimen used to determine the POA had a thickness ranging from 1

32 of an inch to 116 of an inch as seen in Figure 6

and 7 below.

Table 6: Mix Design Chart

6

Cement Flyash Acrylic SandMicro-

spheres7day avg

(psi)28day avg

(psi)

Mix 1 72.8 16.8 10.4 50 50 0.4 1.36 2913 4305Mix 2 71.1 20.3 8.5 50 50 0.36 1.38 2757 4242Mix 3 72.8 16.8 10.4 70 30 0.43 1.63 2636 3806Mix 4 72.8 16.8 10.4 75 25 0.43 1.73 2381 3230Mix 5 72.8 16.8 10.4 75 25 0.43 1.73 2497 3676Mix 6 75.2 17.3 7.5 50 50 0.3 1.38 2484 2972Mix 7 72.2 20.6 7.2 50 50 0.3 1.39 3808 4685Mix 8 74.2 17.1 8.7 53 47 0.35 1.43 2744 3307Mix 9 76.1 16.3 7.6 45 55 0.3 1.33 3441 4272

Mix Name

% Mass of Binders % Mass of Aggregate

W/Cm Mix SG

Compressive Strength

Testing4-inch by 8-inch cylinders were created for each mix design for the purpose of testing.  Compression tests were

performed at 7, 14 and 28 days to determine the strengths of the mixes.  Figure 8 shows a 4-inch by 8-inch test cylinder after compression failure and Figure 9 shows the specific gravities versus 28-day strengths of the nine test mixes. Additionally, cylinders were cast on the canoe casting day for testing purposes but unfortunately were not cured at 100 percent humidity. These cylinders were tested for 28-day compression strength and failed at an average of 3274 psi which is 23.9 percent weaker than the previously tested cylinders of Genesis’s chosen mix.

In order to understand the

composite behavior of the concrete-reinforcement system, panels with the same thickness and reinforcement of the canoe wall were subjected to a four-point flexural test as shown in Figure 10. It was confirmed via the flexure formula that the specimen failed at a stress of approximately 3500 psi at seven days after casting. This is indicative of a compression controlled failure. Furthermore, the test specimens showed visible curvature prior to failure. The test confirmed that the canoe would fail by the crushing of the concrete on the canoe bottom rather than by the tensile failure of the concrete-reinforcement system at the top of the canoe. The large deflection also confirmed that the mix is sufficiently compliant to allow the tension reinforcement to carry all tensile stresses.

Figure 7: Wire mesh GridFigure 6: Thickness of Wire mesh

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 50000.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

Genesis Mix

28-Day Strength (psi)

Spec

ific G

ravi

ty

Figure 8: Concrete Breaker Test Figure 9: 28-Day Strength

6

7

Construction The team conducted research and decided to order a custom made female Styrofoam mold and cure the canoe

inside at room temperature, using a curing compound. The female mold would ensure a smooth outside surface to reduce drag in the water and provide a moisture barrier for curing. The mold was procured from Global Manufacturing Solutions and arrived in three pieces with an additional piece for display purposes. Crisco vegetable shorting was layered on the mold to ensure an easy canoe removal and to provide an oil based chemical to hold water in during the curing process. Sakrete Concrete CURE’n SEAL was used as the curing compound and a single layer was placed on the interior of the canoe to seal in moisture.

Reinforcement was applied in two layers, with a layer of concrete in between as well as an initial layer to hold the mesh. The canoe was cast as a monolithic placement to allow all components of the canoe to set together and form a bond. To account for the large surface area, students applied all but the last layer of concrete by hand. Taking fresh concrete the students covered the mold with a layer of concrete by scooping and spreading evenly by hand. Toothpicks that were specifically marked were used for spot checking the depth of the each layer of concrete. Before the casting day, the thickness of each concrete layer and the mesh was calculated so quality control could be maintained during

Figure 10: Slab Bending Test

Figure 11: Canoe Layers

88

the casting process. Before the concrete was mixed, the reinforcement mesh was precut to the exact placement in the canoe. A smooth transition from spreading concrete to laying mesh was desired to maintain the monolithic placement. Concrete mixing was conducted by a team of students. The dry materials were all measured and placed in a single bucket. Students wore dusk masks, gloves, and eye protection ware for safety. Water and the acrylic were measured and placed in a separate bucket and students wore gloves for safety. The team had two batches measured out while one would be mixing in the mixer to meet the demand of the students applying it on the canoe. Each batch was enough to fill two five gallon buckets and had a mixing time of 15 minutes. The smaller batch was quicker to measure out and less weight to move around the construction site. Total time to measure out the ingredients was roughly 8 minutes. The mixer was ran the majority of the cast day.

The initial layer was placed extremely thin to act as a holder due to friction for the following concrete layers. Once the initial layer of concrete was placed, the preset time started to let the students know exactly when to apply the following layers so that the concrete would not slide on the friction plane between the mold and the first layer of concrete. Reinforcement was inserted by mesh pieces that overlapped each other slightly. The places where the first mesh overlapped and the second mesh overlapped were not in the same place so that, if a crack emerges it will not transfer throughout the width of the canoe. Rubber bands served two purposes to tie the mesh pieces and to hold the mesh in place. A concrete layer was then spread over the mesh to fill in the holes of the mesh and create a consistent surface for the next layer of concrete to be applied like in Figure 12. Also, the layer that filled in the mesh holes acted like another friction holder. After each concrete layer the toothpicks were inserted all throughout the canoe to check thickness again. The mesh was laid to rise above the canoe walls, and the final inside surface of the canoe was considered rough. The inside was sanded down at a second construction day.

Safety for every person on the work site was a critical process in our procedure, and schedule. Every student and professor participated in a lab safety class and had to pass a safety quiz. A second presentation on all chemicals present on the work site and their corresponding safety standards was given to the workers. On the day of construction a safety refresher course was administered before work began.

A second construction day occurred to cut the excess reinforcement from the canoe and sand down any roughness of the interior. A circular saw cut the mesh and excess concrete from above the mold. A third construction day is scheduled to cast the endcaps and gunwales and to build seats for the rowers. Spray Styrofoam will be placed as flotation material in the endcaps. A batch of concrete will be placed to cast the gunwales of the canoe. The canoe will be painted in a way to compliment the theme and name of Genesis.

Figure 12: Application of Concrete

9

Appendix A - References ASTM. (2011). “Standard Performance Specification for Hydraulic-Cement.” ASTM C1157M - 11, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2010). “Standard Specification for Air-Entraining for Concrete.” ASTM C260M - 10a, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2014). “Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements.” ASTM C595M - 14, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2013). “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete.” ASTM C494M - 13, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2012). “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natrual Pozzolan for Use in Concrete.” ASTM C618 -12a, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2013). “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates.” ASTM C33M - 13, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2010). “Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete.” ASTM C1116M - 10a, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2011). “Standard Specification for Granite Dimension Stone.” ASTM C615M - 11, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2013). “Standard Specification for Latex and Powder Polymer Modifiers for use in Hydraulic Cement Concrete and Mortar.” ASTM C494 - 13, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2011). “Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and Sealing Concrete.” ASTM C1315 - 11 West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2011). “Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Concrete.” ASTM C309M - 11, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2010). “Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete.” ASTM C979M – 10, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2012). “Standard Specification for Portland Cement.” ASTM C150M - 12, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2014). “Standard Specification for Slag Cement for Use in Concrete and Mortars.” ASTM C989M - 14, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2014). “Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures.” ASTM C1240 - 14, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2013). “Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates.” ASTM C125M - 14, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2014). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” ASTM C39M - 14a, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2013). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortors (Using 2-in. Or [50-mm] Cube Specimens.” ASTM C109M - 13, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2012). “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate.” ASTM C127 - 12, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2012). “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.” ASTM C494M - 13, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2014). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete.” ASTM C138M - 14, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2004). “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” ASTM C496M - 11, West Conshohocken, PA.ASTM. (2012). “Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Hydraulic-Cement Concrete.” ASTM C1064M - 12, West Conshohocken, PA.Daley, Aaron J. (2013). “A Discussion of Structural Analysis Techniques for Western Kentucky University's Concrete Canoe, “Courageous”” Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/393Drexel University (2014), “Drage,” 2014 Concrete Canoe Design Report, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. Mesker, Emily G. (2013). “A Civil Engineering Student's Crash Course in Concrete Canoe Hull Design.” Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 415. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/415University of Evansville (2013), “Palus,” Aces Concrete Canoe Design Paper, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN.

A-1

University of Nevada, Reno, Concrete Canoe (UNRCC), (2014), “Alluvium,” NCCC Design Paper, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.University of Nevada, Reno, Concrete Canoe (UNRCC), (2013), “Dambitious,” NCCC Design Paper, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.University of Evensville (2005), “Lembus Durus,” Concrete Canoe Design Paper, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN.

A-2

Appendix B - Mixture Proportions

Appendix C – Bill of Materials

YD

SGAmount(lb/yd3)

Volume(ft3)

Amount(lb)

Volume(ft3)

Amount(lb/yd3)

Volume(ft3)

CM1 3.15 100.00 0.509 100.00 0.509 100.00 0.509CM2 2.50 230.00 1.474 230.00 1.474 230.00 1.474CM3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CM4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

330.00 1.98 330.00 1.98 330.00 1.98

F1 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000F2 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

A1 Abs: 2.47 200.00 1.298 200.00 1.298 200.00 1.298A2 Abs: 0.20 175.00 14.022 175.00 14.022 175.00 14.022A3 Abs: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

375.00 15.32 375.00 15.32 375.00 15.32

W1 40.00 0.641 40.00 0.641 40.00 0.6410.00 0.00 0.0040.00 40.00 40.00

W2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0040.00 0.64 40.00 0.64 40.00 0.64

S1 1.06 14.30 0.216 14.30 0.216 14.30 0.216S2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00S3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00P1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14.30 0.22 14.30 0.22 14.30 0.22

Ad1 lb /gal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ad2 lb /gal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ad3 lb /gal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry

41.81

759.3018.16

41.81

759.3018.16

0.3030.120

Water in Admixture

(lb)

Amount(f l oz)

Admixture 1Admixture 2Admixture 3

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

0.303

18.1641.81

Mass of Concrete. lbs

Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft 3

28.12

Liquid Dye (if used)

Pigment 1 (Powder Form)

Theorectical Density, lb /ft 3 = (M / V) Design Density, lb /ft 3 = (M / 27)

0.12Slump, Slump Flow, in . Water-Cementitious Materials RatioCement-Cementitious Materials Ratio

759.30

Total Water (W1 + W2) :

Latex (if used)

Water for Aggregates, SSD W1b. Additional Water

Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form

1.00

Yield, ft 3 = (M / D)

Measured Density, lb/ft 3

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

Relative Yield = (Y / Y D )

32.7427

.

5.27Design Batch Size (ft3):

Cementitious Materials

Portland CementClass C Fly Ash

Design Proportions (Non SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions

Yielded Proportions

Total Fibers: Aggregates

Total Cementitious Materials: Fibers

Fiber 1Fiber 2

Mixture ID:

% Solids

Total Aggregates: Water

Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)W1a. Water from Admixtures

SandMicrospheresAggregate 3

0.3030.120

Other Latex or Liquid Dye (if used)

Dosage(fl oz/cw t)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Dosage(f l oz/cw t)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Total Solids of Admixtures:

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

B-1

Concrete

Materials Quantity Unit Cost Total Price

Portland Cement Type III 9 $10.85 $97.65

Fly Ash, Class C 3 $60.00 $180.00

Microspheres .25 - .5(mm) 2 $185.00 $370.00

Sand, 50 lb bag 5 $2.95 $14.75

Acrylic Bonding, (5 gal) 1 $120.00 $120.00

Reinforcement

Glass Grid 8502 ($3.25 yd2) 26.7 $3.25 $86.67

Mold Construction

Mold Form 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Finishing

Curing Compound 4 $16.00 $64.00

$2,933.07

C-1

C-1