University of Toronto

Concrete CanoeWAKKAwakka2010-2011

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Executive SummaryFounded in 1827 as King’s College, the University of To-ronto has expanded to become one of the leading research and academic institutes in Canada with an internationally acclaimed faculty, research facilities, and three different campuses located in the heart of Toronto, Scarborough and Erindale. Its reputation as a global leader in research and quality academic training, offering over 800 undergraduate, graduate and professional programs, the University of To-ronto draws an intriguing mix of over 79,000 domestic and international students of all backgrounds. The members of the University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team (UTCCT) reflect this diversity, having drawn its 30 members from all 9 engineering disciplines and other faculties as well.

This year marks the 17th anniversary of the Canadian Na-tional Concrete Canoe Competition (CNCCC) as well as the UTCCT’s participation in the competition since its revival in 1994, drawing students from all over the coun-try to participate in this annual design competition. For the last 3 years of the competition, the team has placed 5th overall, including the previous year with the canoe

, when the competition was hosted in Toronto. However, the start of each year brings a renewal of enthusiasm to a team looking to demonstrate a level of excellence representative of students from one of Canada’s leading universities.

Significant changes were made to this year’s concrete mix to abide by the new rule requirements regarding aggregate blends consisting of two unique types of sustainable aggre-gates. After extensive research and testing, it was decided that Cenospheres, one of our two glass sphere aggregates, would be replaced by LiTex™, an inert slag product that met the new competition requirements. Other mix components such as latex and admixtures were replaced or removed due to manufacturing complications shorting out supply. On the construction side, with the removal of ribs from the interior of the canoe, the team was able to optimize the mould con-struction process by using expanded polystyrene slices to reduce CNC milling time and material waste.

Table of Contents: • Executive Summary . . . . . . . . Page i • Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 • Development and Testing . . . . Page x • Project Management and Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page x • Innovation and Sustainability . Page x • Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . Page 7 • Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8 • Design Drawing. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9 • Appendices • A - References . . . . . . . . . . . A1 • B - Mixture Proportion. . . . . B1 • C - Bill of Materials . . . . . . .C1

This year’s canoe, WAKKAWakka, much like the iconic Pac-Man, will continue to move the team for-ward through the labyrinth of competition, thriving in spite of challenges and ever changing obstacles set before it, no matter how many competitors it must consume to achieve the high score of success.

Page iPage 1Page 2

Page 4Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9

A1A2A3

- Page i -

WAKKAWakka Dimensions Length 6.096 m Maximum Width 79.2 cm Maximum Depth 35.56 cm Mass 59 kg Nominal Hull Thickness 11 mm Colours Base Concrete White Stain Black, Yellow,

Green, Blue Material Properties Composite Flexural Strength 18.75 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 11.88 GPa Layers of Carbon Fibre 2 Unit Weight 0.859 kg/m3 Core Mix Flexural Strength 4.88 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 7.93 GPa Unit Weight 0.749 kg/m3 Outer Layer Mix Flexural Strength 9.27 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 11.30 GPa Unit Weight 0.848 kg/m3

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Analysis

- Page 1 -

For a useful finite element analysis (FEA), accu-rate boundary conditions are a necessity. A canoe, floating on water is not restrained at any point. As such, an analysis to simulate such a scenario should similarly contain no restraints. The grav-ity load of the canoe and its paddlers are coun-teracted by the buoyant force of the water be-neath the waterline. As the number of paddlers in the canoe changes, the waterline will shift to maintain equilibrium. Information about the canoe’s water line was obtained using in-house software. Forces applied to the hull of the canoe consist of a pressure gradi-ent below the waterline, in accor-dance with Archimedes’ theory of buoyancy, gravity acting on the canoe itself and the forces of kneeling paddlers. The FEA was performed with the pro-gram COSMOSWorks (Solid-Works Corp. Concord, MA). The canoe’s hull was modeled using shell elements of two different thick-nesses: 11 mm to represent the main body and 22 mm for the gunwales. Shell elements were used in analysis for greater modeling efficiency. Material modeling the hull was given properties equal to the final mix: a density of 0.859 kg/m3, elastic modulus of 11.88 GPa and tensile strength of 18.75 MPa. Given the relatively small forces in each load case, the use of linear analysis was deemed acceptable. The reinforcement in the con-crete was assumed to be smeared throughout the shell acting as a homogeneous, spherically isotropic, linear elastic material. Inertial relief stabilized the model in cases where rounding resulted in the forces acting on the canoe to be slightly out of equilibrium.Load CasesGiven the incredibly high tensile strength of the concrete in last year’s canoe, the use of ribs as structural support came into question. Building a canoe with no ribs has three benefits: reduced materials, simplified mould construction, and a more aesthetically pleasing canoe interior. Thus, the goal of the analysis team was to determine

the feasibility of omitting ribs from this year’s canoe. To accomplish this, an identical set of loading cases were analyzed for two canoes: one with ribs and one without. Paddler loading cases were analyzed for each race in which the canoe must compete, in-cluding the co-ed sprint requiring 4 paddlers, slalom which requires 3 paddlers, and sprint with two pad-dlers. Cases simulating three and two paddler loads (80 kg ea.) were analyzed for two seating arrange-ments: one with paddlers positioned on the de-sired rib locations and another with the paddlers shifted off these locations. The second scenario was taken into consideration because the pad-dlers may be positioned off the ribs for proper balancing depending on the paddlers’ weights. Both seating arrangements were analyzed for the ribbed and un-ribbed canoes. In the case of 3 paddlers seated on rib locations, one paddler was set at the bow and the other two at the stern, leaving the second rib location unoccupied.ResultsSeen from the results of the FEA summarized in Table 1, the inclusion of ribs as structural sup-port has a significant impact on reducing tensile stress only in the loading cases where paddlers are positioned on top of them. In these cases, ten-sile stress increased as much as 57% when the ribs were removed; however, the absolute maximum tensile stress experienced in all loading cases in-creased by only 6.5%, resulting in a factor of safety of 6.69 for an un-ribbed canoe. In all loading cases, the stresses are highly localized under the paddlers’ knees. This can be mitigated by having the paddlers kneel on foam blocks to better distribute their weight. Thus, it was determined that omitting ribs from this year’s canoe, WAKKAWAKKA, would not have a significant impact on its structural integrity.

Figure 1: Three paddler on the ribs loading scenario.

Table 1: Load case results. Load Cases (No. of paddlers)

Maximum Occurring Stress (MPA) With ribs Without ribs

2 (on ribs) 1.452 2.107 2 (off ribs) 2.301 2.306 3 (on ribs) 1.837 2.804 3 (off ribs) 2.634 2.715 4 (on ribs) 1.752 2.752

Table 1: Comparison of maximum stress results between a ribbed and un-ribbed mould in various loading conditions.

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Development & TestingTwo main objectives for the concrete mix were laid out for this year, though the primary objective was to find replacements for several key components. Last year’s mix set new standards in strength with a mean composite tensile strength of 23.3 MPa [1]. While the necessitation of a new class of recycled aggre-gate made this a difficult benchmark to strive for, the mix team still sought to have the tensile strength of this year’s mix remain competitive with last year’s. The secondary objective was to optimize the density of the mix based on this year’s stan-dardized hull design. However, this was not sim-ply a matter of producing the lightest mix possible. Past performance of THE ONE CANOE, showed a low density canoe will sit too high on the water and be difficult to steer. To resolve this issue, vari-ous aggregate blends were tested until an optimal ratio of S15 Microspheres and LiTex™ could pro-duce a mix with the desired density. The resulting fibre reinforced concrete had a composite tensile strength of 18.75 MPa.TestingMix development started early, as control groups were casted at the begin-ning of September and continued until early January. As beams must be both casted and tested within a specified window of time, new test mixes were designed and refined as previous test data was gathered. All beams went through the same curing process before testing: 16 days of curing inside a tent with a high relative humidity of ~90% for cement hydration, followed by 9 days of dry curing for polymer coalescence. For each mix, four rectangular beams with a size of 0.5 cm by 6cm by 40 cm were cast. The beams were used to measure each mix’s flexural strength and approximate flexural stiffness using a three point

bend test based on ASTM C967-03 [2] for thin beams.Binder SelectionBinder composition did not change drastically from the previous year. Despite not being used in last year’s final product, metakaolin was retested to en-sure prior tests were comprehensive. Once again, the results showed that mixes containing metakaolin had consistently higher densities and lower work-abilities. New sustainable binders, such as rice ash husks and slag cement were tested, though results indicated a decrease in strength and den-sity. Thus, the optimal combination of binders was concluded to be 50% Portland white cement, 10% type C fly-ash, and 1% colloidal nano-sil-ica. Identical to the previous year but with a wa-ter-cement ratio of 0.346 due to the addition of a new acrylic latex with a lower solids content.Aggregate SelectionDue to rule modifications, the aggregate compo-sition now required at minimum of two recycled

aggregates of dis-similar material type. Last year, the two recycled ag-gregates were Ce-nospheres and Sis-cor, both a type of glass microsphere. Cenospheres was eliminated from the mix, as it was the denser mate-rial of the two.

As the canoe is comprised of multiple thin lay-ers, the new ag-gregate needed

to fall within a specific particle size range. The mix team found two candidates, crushed deco-rative glass and LiTex™, a pelletized and air-cooled, blast furnace slag. Both materials had the same density, but the LiTex™ did not weak-en the mix as much as the glass (see graph 1).

- Page 2 -

12.22 14.5118.78 17.36 18.75

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5Mix #

Flexural Strength Comparison of Mixes

Tens

ile S

tren

gth

(MPa

)

Graph 1: Comparison of flexural strength of various candidate mixes tested.1: Fibre Mix with Crushed Glass: Raised water cement ratio 2: Fibre Mix with Crushed Glass: Lowed water cement ratio3: Candidate Mix with LiTex™ (150-300 Grade)4: Candidate Mix with LiTex™ (300-600 Grade)5: Final Composite Mix

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Further research was performed with LiTex™ to determine the effects of different particle sizes on strength. LiTex™ was sieved using a standardized mechanical sieve to obtain different grades of the aggregate. Results indicated that grades of 150 to 300, and 300 to 600 microns were suitable for mixes. To offset the LiTex™’s high specific grav-ity, the mass fraction of S15 Microspheres was increased beyond the 5% used in previous years, since the limitation on microsphere content was removed. Testing showed that the amount of S15 Microspheres could be increased just past 25% by mass without a steep drop-off in strength. Any at-tempt at increasing the amount of Expancel used decreased strength and workability. Thus, the best aggregate blend for the canoe was a 30% S15 Mi-crosphere, 25% LiTex™, 43% Siscor, and 2% Expancel mass fraction ratio, which exhibited the best strength to density ratio for the set goals.Polymer Modiflcation and AdmixturesReplacements for Multiple Materials were neces-sary due to dwindling supplies and the inability to restock the former latex (UCAR 412), air entrainer, and poly-acrylic acid (PAA). Since acrylic latex had the most impact on mixes in the past, the samples of latex obtained were extensively tested with differ-ent binders. Two brands of latex were trialed, Acryl 60 and SBR, with various binders. The results indi-cated that the Acryl 60 reduced density and work-ability, while the SBR latex provided a slight in-crease in strength when combined with metakaolin. Cost was ultimately the deciding factor as the team was able to acquire the Acryl 60, which was mar-ginally inferior, at a much lower cost than SBR. Former tests show air entrainer had mini-mal effect on the strength or workability of the mixes. Thus, the mix team wanted to find a sub-stitute that would, at the very least, have no neg-ative side effects. Despite the claim that acryl 60 latex was not optimal for air entrained mixes, no noticeable side effects were observed with its in-clusion in test mixes. As long as the amount of air entrainer was limited to prevent excessive po-rosity, the mix’s strength remained unaffected. Next, to replace PAA, a very similar product was tested: Sodium Poly-Acrylic Acid (NaPAA), a more pH neutral version of PAA.

In theory, this admixture should perform the samefunction as PAA and increase the flexural strengthof the concrete mix [3]. However, testing concluded that while NaPAA did increase strength of the mix, it also drastically re-duced the concrete’s workability. As the ben-efits were not worth the hindrance, it was de-cided to forgo using this admixture entirely.Secondary ReinforcementThe team decided again to utilize ultra-high mo-lecular weight polyethylene fibres (UHMWPE, Dyneema) for secondary reinforcement fibre. Test-ed in 2007 against several alternatives, they are still among the best fibres available in terms of density (1 g/mL) and flexural strength (20% increase) [4]. Short fibre reinforcement was only used in the outer layers of the hull where stresses are highest. Mix used in the core layer did not con-tain fibres to increase workability and bonding and decrease density. To compensate for the re-duced workability in the outer layers, the binder content ratio was increased from 34% to 36% and the aggregate ratio was lowered by 3% for any mix with secondary reinforcement. Fibres were pre-sorted prior to their addition into the mix to increase their dispersion and prevent clumping.Primary ReinforcementDue to the excellent performance of carbon fibre meshing in past canoes, it was once again utilized as the primary reinforcement for the canoe this year. Since the carbon fibre is initially a closely woven mesh, it was necessary to manually removes strands to create an open area that meets the competition re-quirements without destroying its structural integrity. 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. The fin-ished mesh had an open area of approximately 45%. ConclusionThis year’s mix is the product of years of research and experimentation from past and present teams at the University of Toronto. Although the ten-sile strength dropped to 18.75 MPa, the team has managed to create a mix with a decent balance of strength, workability, and density, which will aid the performance of WAKKAWakka on water.

- Page 3-

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Project Management and Construction

The executive members of the team first met in late May to set out the goals for the year and dis-cuss the obstacles encountered by last year’s team. This was particularly important as the overall or-ganization of the team was rearranged to accom-modate the absence of the previous year’s mix manager along with several key alumni members. One project manager oversaw the entire proj-ect while two vice project managers assisted in the technical and logistical aspects. This allowed one vice project manager to continue to support the team remotely via electronic communication. As many executive members had only been with the team for a single year, most were unclear of their particular responsibilities. To ensure the team operated smoothly, the project manager dis-cussed with each section leader, in separate meet-ings, their respective responsibilities, milestones and delivery dates. This ensured each executive member was given a task to complete and a clear deadline. Weekly executive meetings were held to assess their progress and brainstorm solu-tions to any roadblocks that may have occurred. All new members were rotated through each of the sections of construction, casting, and mix-ing where the section leader guided them through the process. For example, to construct the canoe stand the section leader provided the group with the restraints and objective of the project and led them through a design brainstorming session. This allowed new members to understand and con-tribute to both the design and assembly process.Financial and Resource allocationThis year’s budget was decided based on consis-tent spending from the last two years. Each sec-tion was allotted a specific budget with additional money set aside for unforeseen expenses. A student levy from the faculty, along with new sponsors and alumni donations helped cover the costs. Since transportation and accommodation cost increased dramatically from last year, when the competition was held locally, the team redoubled their efforts to reduce costs and solicit more monetary donations. Cost reductions were possible through a radical

decrease in raw material usage for both mix and construction projects, through the recycling of past construction projects and donations from suppliers. Changes in the mould design reduced milling time which resulted in lower labour costs. The sponsorship team prepared packages which were sent out to po-tential sponsors. Although over 50 companies were reached out to, new sources of monetary income for the team were difficult to come by as there are limited incentives that can be offered to potential sponsors. SchedulingMajor milestones and critical paths were similar to previous years with an extension to the mix test-ing period. Recruitment activities began in Sep-tember with concrete mix and composition testing starting concurrently two weeks into the month. Testing continued for five months until the end of January. The testing period was longer than previ-ous years, which was beneficial since the mix team experienced some delay in testing due to material procurement issues. Hull analysis was done by a separate team in parallel to mix design. Mould machining and construction, which involved the entire team, was schedule on a weekend in early February. Casting day was set as the first day of reading week to accommodate the daylong event. All major milestones were met without delay.

Mould ConstructionBased on the canoe design data provided by the com-petition, a male mould was constructed using com-puter modeling software. This design was then deliv-ered to the team’s milling contact in a CAD format. Along its length, the entirety of the canoe was divided into 50.8 mm slices, except for the bow and stern tips, both of which were 45.72 mm long.

- Page 4 -

Table 2: Breakdown of Task hours Task Hours Hull Analysis & Mould Design 400 Concrete Design 1000 Final Product Construction 1900 Business and Administration 400 Paddling 1000

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

These slices were milled from sheets of expanded polystyrene of equivalent thickness and the tips of the canoe were milled from a leftover expanded poly-styrene block from last year’s mould. This year’s mould was divided into slices to generate simpler mould pieces and reduce the probability of milling errors, which significantly reduced the time required to mill the entire mould. Each tip of the canoe was made in two halves, to ensure a flat surface was in contact with the milling table. The bottoms of these milled pieces were manually sanded smooth to remove excess foam left during machining. The canoe mould was as-sembled in two halves by applying a layer of adhesive to each side of a mould slice and stacking them one on top of the other. Each stack was aligned with 2.54 mm diameter cop-per piping via holes drilled through every mould slice during milling. The two halves were adhered togeth-er and excess foam was sanded away. Any defects or gaps in the mould were patched with silicone caulking and drywall filler. The top portion of the mould was covered with shrink-wrap and heated, while the gunwales were taped over to produce a smooth inner surface upon demoulding. The tips of the canoe were shrink-wrapped as well, but not immediately assembled.Canoe Construction Casting of the canoe began with the plate caps at both the bow and the stern, which act as splash guards keeping water out of the canoe should the bow or stern dip slightly below the water line. Once completed the foam tips of the mould were con-nected to the rest of the assembled mould. The mould was then coated in the initial layer of outer fibre mix. A layer of carbon fibre mesh was laid over the outer mix, and an inner non-fibre core mix was worked in between the mesh to facilitate bonding between layers. A second layer of carbon fibre mesh was laid on top of the core mix and was layered with yet another layer of outer fibre

mix for strength and finally a non-fibrous mix for sanding. Each layer of concrete was approxi-mately 3.5 mm thick. Prior to casting the sand-ing layer, ten pre-milled cross-sectional pieces were placed equidistance apart on top of the outer fibre layer as a quality control check to en-sure the desired outer dimensions were achieved. A humidity tent was constructed around the canoe as it was left to cure for 28 days. After anaddi-

tional 7 days was given for the latex films to harden, the mould and canoe were unfastened from the table. The mould was not removed until sanding of the bottom of the canoe was com-pleted to avoid resting the canoe on its gunwales. Final finishing of the canoe included many hours of sanding and polishing to obtain a smooth and even surface. The canoe was then decorated with acid stain and sealed with acrylic sealer. The names of both the canoe and

the university were added after sealing. Safety and Quality Control

Due to the hazardous nature of the materials required for this project, extreme care was taken in ensur-ing that everyone was properly trained in the safety procedures for the lab and equipment that they were

using, and that any concerns were ad-dressed promptly. Poor air quality in the work space was a concern last year that was resolved through a consulta-tion with the team’s faculty advisor, who had the mix area relocated to an enclosed room custom fit with a vacu-um filter. All members entering the area were properly fitted with NIOSH certi-fied N95 canister masks to prevent the inhalation of microspheres and dust. Quality Control was maintained by following CSA and ASTM standards

where applicable, including but not lim-ited to, test sample creation, curing and test meth-ods, In cases where no standards apply, the team self-controlled its quality using standardized casting methods including using a modified miniaturized slump cone to determine mix rheology based on the guidelines prepared by Ramachandran et al [5].

- Page 5-

Figure 2. Gluing and aligning the foam slices together.

Figure 3. Casting second layer of concrete onto fibre mesh.

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Innovation and Substainability

This year, the team was able to significantly im-prove in two key aspects of the project: concrete mix design and mould construction. While many of the innovations were made to resolve past issues, each of the team’s section leaders put effort in ex-panding their area of expertise. For example, while several of the changes made to the mix this year were in accordance to the changes in rule require-ments, the mix team also explored sustainable al-ternatives for each component of the mix, such as binders, aggregates, secondary fibres, and admix-tures. Not all the alternatives found could be incor-porated into this year’s mix; however, the testing results can be passed on to future years who may encounter the need to make changes to their mix de-signs as required by either manufacturing compli-cations or changes to the rules of the competition. One of the most significant changes this year was in the mould construction. Rather than having the mould carved from large block sections, slices were cut, resulting in a reduction in CNC milling time and labour costs. Slices were easier to mill compared to large block sections, which generally have too large a depth and often obstruct the path of

the CNC’s drill and arm. The group also looked at different types of protective coatings for the mould. A concrete releasing agent,

various powdery substances, wax, and an epoxy coating were all tested. However, it was found that the traditional method of shrink wrapping the mould was still the easiest to de-mould and provided the best interior surface. Additionally, the placement of con-crete was improved by smoothing out the final con-crete layer with metal scrappers rather than rolling pins which would push the underlying layers of con-crete outwards, causing de-lamination of the layers. Due to increased competition costs, the team turned towards the reducing, recycling, and re-using of raw materials. Throughout the year, the construction team worked out arrangements with

various student groups to salvage material from completed projects which students no longer wanted or were leftover from student events. In exchange, the team was responsible for the disposal of any un-usable parts. All of the lumber from our canoe stand and display were recycled from discarded projects. Batches of test concrete were made smaller to re-duce concrete waste. Any excess concrete was used to create various themed figures to hand out at club fairs as recruitment give-aways or to decorate the product display. All broken test beams were saved to test a vari-ety of stains procured by the finishing manager. With the abundance of beams left over from test-ing, the finish-ing team was able to test various colours and dilu-tion ratios of a collection of acid stains from several suppliers. Once the finishing tests were completed, these beams were crushed down to be used as ag-gregate for the first team building event next year, in which new members get a chance to build their own miniature concrete canoes from scratch. In cases where raw material had to be pur-chased, the team made fullest use of the material, virtually eliminating waste. Since last year’s hull design group decided to use a custom designed hull shape rather than the standard hull shape set out by the competition, it was necessary to create a new foam mould from scratch. However, as the team decided to proceed with a non-ribbed hull design, slices of expanded polystyrene foam were used rather than blocks as in previous years. This reduced the amount of waste produced from mill-ing mistakes and provided leftover scrap foam that was used to construct and improve the aesthetics of the product display and stand. Once the canoe was de-moulded, seats for the paddlers were carved out of the foam used for the mould since it al-ready matched the contour of the canoe’s interior.

- Page 6-

Figure 4: CNC milling expanded polystyrene slice.

Figure 5: Different water to stain ratios being tested on broken beams.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO WAKKAwakka

FacultyADVISORS

Annie KuangProject Manager

Michael FerriVP- Project ManagerTechnical + Hull Master

Jia Yi GuanVP- Project ManagerLogistics

Matthew WvPaddling Coach

Lian NiMix Consultant

Janet WongCathy Zhu Co-Sponsorship Managers

Collin ZhouGraphics Manager

Alfie ThamHull Apprentice

Matthew InnocenteFinishing Manager

Evan MaMark Gaglione Co-Construction Managers

Alex SzotCasting Manager

David FerriMix Master

Oversee and coordinate technical and opera-tional tasks

Oversee and coor-dinate logistical and financial operations

Design and testing of concrete, reinforcement, and casting techniques

Strength, endur-ance and technique training of paddling team members

Oversee all func-tional groups. Responsible for overall budget, time management, task delegation and quality monitoring

Understand FEA to facili-tate position transition for canoe season 2011-2012

Oversee operation between the mix group and casting group on casting day

In charge of procuring and testing all finishing materials

Oversee all fundraising events and activities

Graphics design for technical report, canoe, presentation and display

Design and construction of table, stand for canoe and display

Prof. Kim PressnailFaculty Advisor and Liason

Prof. Karl PetersonSEM Imaging Advisor

Lorine JungFinancial Account Support

Dan GrozeaTensile Lab Supervisor

Organization Chart

- Pag

e 7 -

Task NameProject TimelineProject Management

Establish GoalsBudget FormulationOrganize Space, Renewal of Contacts and Recruitment Event PreperationRecruitment EventsSponsorship Package CreationRaise FundsPlan and Organize Competition Trip

Hull AnalysisAssessment of Past DesignsFinalize Performance CriteriaRapid Generation and Analysis of DesignsAnalysis and Refinement of Final DesignMould Design and Modeling

Mix DesignFormulate Testing Goals and DirectionsControl Mix DesignResearch and Material GatheringWater Cement Ratio Testing and AnalysisBinder Testing and AnalysisAdmixture Testing and AnalysisAgraggate Testing and AnalysisComposite Mix Testing and AnalysisFinal Mix Design and AssessmentFinal Mix Chosen

ConstructionCNC MillingMold Assembly and FinishingCastingCuringCanoe Finishing

Tech ReportWritingRevisionFinal and PrintingFinal Report Due

Presentation and DisplayTheme CreationStand ConstructionDisplay DesignDisplay ContructionPower PointRehearsal

PaddlingWorkoutsPaddling Practice at the Lake (Fall)Paddling Practice at the poolPaddling Practice at the Lake (Spring)

Official Team ChosenCompetitionManagement Transition

23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26Jun '10 Jul '10 Aug '10 Sep '10 Oct '10 Nov '10 Dec '10 Jan '11 Feb '11 Mar '11 Apr '11 May '11 Jun '11 Ju

Task Duration

Baseline

Milestone

Summary

Rolled Up Task

Rolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up Progress

Split

External Tasks

Project Summary

Group By Summary

Page 1

Project: ganttDate: Tue 4/19/11

- Page 8 -

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

WAKK

Awa

kka

- Page 9 -

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Appendix A-References

- a-1 -

[1] University of Toronto, Concrete Canoe (2010). “BRAAAAAINZZZ.” CNCCC Design Paper, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

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

[3] Mitchell, L. D., (1997) “Chemistry of Portland Cement as Affected by the addition of Polyalke-noic Acids.” PhD thesis, Keele University.

[4] University of Toronto, Concrete Canoe (2007). “Ecto-2.” CNCCC Design Paper, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

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

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Appendix B- mix Proportions

- B-1 -

YD

SGAmount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(kg)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

CM1 3.15 220.29 0.070 0.66087 0.000210 230.1 0.073

CM2 2.58 44.06 0.017 0.13218 0.000051 46.02 0.018

CM3 2.40 4.41 0.002 0.01323 0.000006 4.61 0.002

CM4 2.60 171.83 0.066 0.51549 0.000198 179.48 0.069

440.59 0.155 1.32177 0.000465 460.21 0.162

F1 1.00 10.00 0.01 0.03 0.000030 10.45 0.01

10.00 0.01 0.03 0.000030 10.45 0.01

A1 Abs: 0% 0.025 3.02 0.121 0.00906 0.000362 3.15 0.126

A2 Abs: 2% 0.590 64.97 0.110 0.19491 0.000330 67.86 0.115

A3 S15 Microspheres Abs: 0% 0.160 45.33 0.283 0.13599 0.000850 47.35 0.296

A4 LiTex (150/600) Abs: 1% 2.400 17.00 0.007 0.05099 0.000021 17.75 0.007

A5 Abs: 1% 2.400 20.77 0.009 0.06232 0.000026 21.70 0.009

151.09 0.530 0.45327 0.001590 157.82 0.554

W1 154.55 0.155 0.46365 0.000464 161.43 0.161

141.33 0.42399 147.63

0.00 0.00 0.00

13.22 0.03966 13.81

W2 1.00 2.51 0.00753 2.62

157.06 0.157 0.47118 0.000471 164.06 0.164

S1 1.04 54.96 0.053 0.16488 0.000159 57.41 0.055

54.96 0.053 0.16488 0.000159 57.41 0.055

Ad1 1100 kg/m³ 0.00 455 0.00 5.70 0.000 475.3 0.00

Ad2 1007 kg/m³ 0.00 40 0.00 0.50 0.000 41.8 0.00

Ad3 1040 kg/m³ 28.00 45297.60 141.33 566.22 0.424 47315.2 147.63

141.33 0.424 147.63

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / Y D ) 0.96

Total Fibers:

Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 9.76 5.74 5.74

Yield, m3

= (M / D) 1.00 0.002880 1.00

Design Density, kg/m3 811.36

Measured Density, kg/m3 847.50 847.50

Absolute Volume of Concrete, m3 0.905 0.002715 0.945

Theorectical Density, kg/m3 899.12 899.12 899.12

Slump, Slump Flow, mm. 32.5 32.5 32.5

Mass of Concrete. Kg 813.70 2.44110 849.94

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.346 0.346 0.346

Dosage

(ml/ 100

kg cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Glenium 3400NV

Air Entrainer

Acrylic Layex

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.500 0.500 0.500

Total Water (W1 + W2) :

Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and Dyes

Acrylic Latex (Thoro: Acryl 60)

Total Solids of Admixtures:

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid

Form)%

Solids

Dosage

(ml/ 100

kg cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Amount

(ml)

Water in

Admixture

(kg)

W1b. Additional Water

W1c. From Collodial Silica Dispersion

Water for Aggregates, SSD

Total Aggregates:

Water

Water for CM Hydration (W1a+W1b+W1c)

1.00W1a. Water from Admixtures

LiTex (300/600) Abs

Cementitious Materials

Portland Cement

Type C Fly Ash

Collodial Silica

Amorphous Calcium Aluminosilicate

Total Cementitious Materials:

Fibers

Dyneema (UHMWPE)

Aggregates

Expancel Microspheres

Poraver (0.25-0.5mm)

Mixture ID: Outer Layers (Fiber) Design Proportions

(Non SSD)

Actual Batched

Proportions

Yielded

ProportionsDesign Batch Size (m3): 0.003

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

- B-2 -

YD

SGAmount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(kg)

Volume

(m3)

Amount

(kg/m3)

Volume

(m3)

CM1 3.15 207.99 0.066 0.62397 0.000198 201.32 0.064

CM2 2.58 41.60 0.016 0.12480 0.000048 40.27 0.016

CM3 2.40 4.16 0.002 0.01248 0.000005 4.03 0.002

CM4 2.60 162.23 0.062 0.48669 0.000187 157.03 0.060

415.98 0.146 1.24794 0.000439 402.64 0.142

F1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

A1 Abs: 0% 0.025 3.19 0.128 0.00957 0.000383 3.09 0.124

A2 Abs: 2% 0.590 68.64 0.116 0.20592 0.000349 66.44 0.113

A3 S15 Microspheres Abs: 0% 0.160 47.89 0.299 0.14367 0.000898 46.35 0.290

A4 Abs: 1% 2.400 39.91 0.017 0.11973 0.000050 38.63 0.016

159.63 0.560 0.47889 0.001680 154.51 0.542

W1 146.19 0.146 0.43857 0.000439 141.50 0.142

133.71 0.40113 129.42

0.00 0.00 0.00

12.48 0.03744 12.08

W2 1.00 2.66 0.00798 2.57

148.85 0.149 0.44655 0.000447 144.08 0.144

S1 1.04 52.00 0.050 0.15600 0.000150 50.33 0.048

52.00 0.050 0.15600 0.000150 50.33 0.048

Ad1 1100 kg/m³ 0.00 455 0.00 5.70 0.000 440.4 0.00

Ad2 1007 kg/m³ 0.00 40 0.00 0.50 0.000 38.7 0.00

Ad3 1040 kg/m³ 28.00 42759.62 133.71 535.67 0.401 41388.3 129.42

133.71 0.401 129.42

M

V

T

D

D

A

Y

Ry

0.500

0.346

119.5

Water in

Admixture

(kg)

Amount

(ml)

0.346

119.5

Dosage

(ml/ 100

kg cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

0.500

857.65

2.32938

0.002716

857.95

751.56

0.876

Mass of Concrete. Kg

Absolute Volume of Concrete, m3

773.99

Theorectical Density, kg/m3

Design Density, kg/m3

776.46

0.905

857.97

Total Water (W1 + W2) :

Acrylic Latex (Thoro: Acryl 60)

Water for Aggregates, SSD

W1c. From Collodial Silica Dispersion

Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and Dyes

1.00W1b. Additional Water

Yield, m3

= (M / D)

Measured Density, kg/m3

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

Relative Yield = (Y / Y D )

9.50

1.00

1.04

1.000.003109

12.65 12.68

749.17 749.17

Collodial Silica

Design Proportions

(Non SSD)

Actual Batched

Proportions

Yielded

Proportions

Mixture ID: Core Mix (Non-Fibre)

0.003Design Batch Size (m3):

Cementitious Materials

Portland Cement

Type C Fly Ash

Amorphous Calcium Aluminosilicate

Water

Water for CM Hydration (W1a+W1b+W1c)

W1a. Water from Admixtures

Expancel Microspheres

Poraver (0.25-0.5mm)

LiTex (300/600) Abs

Aggregates

Total Cementitious Materials:

Fibers

Dyneema (UHMWPE)

Total Aggregates:

119.5Slump, Slump Flow, mm.

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio

Dosage

(ml/ 100

kg cm)

Water in

Admixture

(kg/m3)

Acrylic Layex

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

0.500

0.346

Total Solids of Admixtures:

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid

Form)%

Solids

Glenium 3400NV

Air Entrainer

WAKK

Awa

kka

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

OR

ON

TO

Appendix C- Bill of Materials

- c-1 -

Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost (CAD) Federal White Cement 18.72 kg $0.47 per kg $8.80 Flyash Type C 3.75 kg $0.0265 per kg $0.10 VCAS 14.61 kg $1.19 per kg $17.39 LiTex™ 3.6 kg $0.06 per kg $0.22 Poraver 6.18 kg $1.48 per kg $9.15 Expancel 0.3 kg $39.68 per kg $11.90 S15 Microspheres 4.32 kg $24.05 per kg $103.90 Cembinder 3.6 kg $0.50 per kg $1.80 Acryl 60 Latex 16.71 kg $5.08 per kg $84.89 Dyneema Fibres 0.6 kg $20 per kg $12.00 Air Entrainer 0.015 L $14 per L $0.21 Glenium 3400NV 0.171 L $7.00 per L $1.20 Carbon Fibre 13.08m2 $20.00 per m2 $261.60 Vinyl Lettering Lump Sum $298.32 $298.32 Acid Stain

- NSTAR Stains (Ice Blue) - LITHOCHROME Tintura

Stains (Mustard Yellow, Black, Zenith Blue)

0.2L 0.2L

$26.95 per L $70.00 per L

$5.39

$14.00

Sealer 1.78L $6.02 per L $10.72 Foam Mould, complete Lump Sum $2057.83 $2057.83

Total $2898.59