Executive Summary

Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) is located in the suburban setting of

Marietta, Ga. In the southeast ASCE student conference, the SPSU concrete canoe team

has placed 18th, 18

th, and 9

th in the last three years of competition. “Legacy” has a

maximum length of 19 feet 1 inches, a maximum width of 32 inches, and a weight of 330

pounds. The exterior design of the canoe is inspired by the hull of a battleship. The inside

of “Legacy” consists of a unique rendition of the American and the Gadsden flag. The

concrete mix used in the canoe is a high strength, yet lightweight design with a 1300 psi

compressive strength and a 210 psi tensile strength at a mere 57.4 lbs/ft3 dry and 60 lbs/ft

3

wet. The canoe is further supported with two layers of geo mesh reinforcement material.

Project Management

Team Captain JD Bowers spent the majority of the fall semester designing the

new mold and finding a few people to help in the process. After good help was found it

was then time to start construction of the mold. The mold was completed in early January

and the canoe poured soon after.

Additionally, the team faced a challenge of funding and was required to use

surplus materials from previous years in order to offset the cost required to build the

canoe. The main sources of funding for the project came initially from Southern

Polytechnic’s SGA, and later came from the Alumni Association. The initial batch of

funds were primarily used in the replenishing of exhausted materials and worn out

equipment critical to canoe construction. The remaining funds from the alumni

association, as well as post-fiscal SGA funds, were then used to cover transportation and

other costs associated with competition. After competition, any leftover money will be

used to preorder equipment and materials for next year’s competition.

Throughout the spring semester, faculty advisor Nancy Turner, P.E. periodically

evaluated the canoe’s progress providing suggestions for adjustments as needed. In terms

of safety measures, all team members participating have been required to wear close toed

shoes, secure hair, avoid jewelry, and exercise caution while lifting heavy objects.

Additionally, measures have been taken to ensure the canoe room remains well ventilated

during construction. Eyewear and masks have been provided and their use strongly

encouraged.

In terms of scheduling, ambitious deadlines for housekeeping matters, formwork

creation, concrete pouring, and preparation for competition were set in order to foster

efficient progression through the critical path of events (see project schedule on page 10).

Although many of these deadlines proved to be unrealistic, the canoe was still poured on

January 12nd

. This extra time has proved to be invaluable for several reasons. Firstly, the

canoe was given ample time to cure in order to reach its peak 28 day strength. Secondly,

unforeseen events such as two winter weather events has had minimal impact on progress

towards competition. The extra time has proved vital in preventing rushing through

finishing.

Organization Chart

Team Members

Team Captains

Faculty Advisor

Nancy Turner, P.E.

Nathan Boyd

Overseeing:

1. Technical Communication

2. Bookkeeping

Brian Demeza

-Canoe Finishing

-Mold Construction

Simone Belay

- Concrete Placement

Nate Echols

-Canoe Finishing

-Mold Construction

Tim Dow

-Canoe Finishing

-Mold Construction

Brandon Thrasher

-Concrete Placement

JD Bowers

Overseeing:

1. Construction

2. Paddling

Zach Strickland

-Canoe Finishing

-Mold Construction

-Concrete Placement

Elizabeth Cook

-Canoe Finishing

Valerie Croy

-Canoe Finishing

Ethan Grant

-Canoe Finishing

J.D. Bowers

-Transportation

-Canoe Finishing

Hull Design and Structural Analysis

The hull design of this year’s canoe incorporates several different allocations of

previous year’s canoes. The idea of Legacy came from 3 years’ experience of

competition. Since there have been so many different types of canoes over these past

years we chose a design that will try to incorporate many different small items so that it

will perform well. Legacy is 19’1” long and 31” wide. The reason for the massive size of

this canoe is so that the rowers are comfortable and feel stable in the water. The width of

Legacy should be more than enough displacement so the side to side motion will not be

an issue. The bottom of Legacy is flat. This idea came into play for water displacement.

The idea of a flat surface on the bottom of the canoe is something that is new to all of the

people that worked on building it, but after some test was run we determined that it was

not harmful, but not really helpful either. Having a flat bottom made construction easier

though. The nose and tail of Legacy was the next area that was looked at. After watching

races in the years before and the different shapes of the noses it was determined that a

wide slightly round nose is the way to go. This does not allow the canoe to “dig in” when

making sharp turns. Legacy is 14” deep this came into play solely from last year’s SPSU

canoe which was only 9” deep. After seeing it in the water last year it was determined

that this year’s canoe would be deeper so that it set out of the water higher.

Overall Legacy should be a canoe that performs very well against competition.

With the massive size of the canoe this year it will be a little bit harder to transport and

maneuver on land but in the water it should float and row very well.

Figure 1: Legacy after foam mold pulled out- Bowers, 2015

Structural Analysis

The structural Analysis of Legacy was based solely the research of Stephanie

Stache. In her write up she did analysis of the stresses with 2 people in the canoe as well

as 4 people. These images are displayed below. These images show the max stress points

in the canoe with the respective loads.

Figure 2: max stress 2 people- Stache, 2013

Figure 3: max stress 4 people- Stache, 2013

Development and Testing

The concrete mix design used in this year’s canoe is practically equivalent to the

mix design from last year. The reuse of this design is justified by its flexural strength,

durability, and low unit weight. The importance of using concrete with high flexural

strength cannot be overstated since the live load of the paddlers loads the concrete in

bending. In addition, the canoe needs to be able to withstand repeated cyclic loadings to

avoid cracking. The specific fiber incorporated, Nycon-PVA RECS7, has proven to

reduce the impact, shatter and abrasion resistance of concrete. This reputation has been

reinforced in lab tests. In compressive and tensile tests, test cylinders reinforced with

Nycon fibers showed considerable improvements in maximum strength after loaded near

failure as compared to cylinders without Nycon fibers. The fibers also aid in minimizing

permanent deformations in the canoe hull. Acryl 60 was used as the primary admixture in

the concrete, serving as a superplastisizer and to improve the flex properties of the canoe

mix. Although a drawback of using this admixture is strength loss, the added benefit of

increased flexibility justified the sacrifice. For sustainability reasons, Type C fly ash was

used to replace a marginal portion of cement paste.

Figure 4: 2 inch Concrete Cubes after 7 Day Curing, (Ginn, 2013)

Figure 1 displays concrete cubes possessing the final concrete mix proportions

used in the canoe design. The process for determining the mix proportions deviated from

standard methods and is detailed as follows: Three glass-based aggregates were used in

the concrete mix design: Scissor Poraver expanded glass and 3M glass bubbles. Most

notably, Poraver is an environmentally sustainable product made exclusively recycled

materials. This lightweight aggregate has a crush strength of 200 psi. This is significantly

stronger than most lightweight aggregates such as perlite and vermiculite Proportioning

of these aggregates was first determined by constructing a Microsoft Excel gradation

curve and forcing the fine aggregates used to fall within the minimum and maximum

limits determined by the gradation. The water to cement ratio was determined by setting a

target compressive strength of 1500 psi and tensile strength of 200 psi. The maximum

aggregate size was determined by limiting the size to ¾ of the minimum clear space

between the reinforcement materials and the edge of the canoe. According to this target,

the rough maximum aggregate size was determined to be roughly 1/8 of an inch. With the

general mix design parameters set, the finest aggregates used (3m products) and silica

fume were used to replace small portions of cement. The reasoning behind these tests was

to reduce the unit weight without significantly compromising strength. Several trials were

conducted on 2 inch concrete cubes until the unit weight was reduced by approximately

10 lb/ft3.

After a series of testing and fine tuning material proportions, a final mix was

designed weighing 57.4 lb/ft3. This was paired with a final compressive strength of 1300

psi, a splitting tensile strength of 210 psi, a flexural strength of 790 psi, and a maximum

bending moment of 1500 𝑙𝑏 𝑖𝑛⁄ . Photos of the compression, flexural and splitting tension

samples can be seen in figure 2 below:

Figure 5: (Left) Compressive Failure, (Right) Flexural and Bending (Ginn, 2013).

Construction

The formwork of the 2015 canoe Legacy went through many different prototypes

before a good design was chosen. The initial formwork was to be created from wood and

Plexiglas as seen in figure 6.

Figure 6: wood and Plexiglas mold- Bowers, 2014

After it was determined that the wood and Plexiglas mold would not work for us

we then decided to use 3 pound density foam for the mold. This mold was created by

using the plywood stations already cut for the mold we already tried, and a hotwire to cut

the foam as seen in figure 7. This male mold was placed on the table to be cut smoothly

and level. The attention to detail in this mold will make it useful for at least one more

year.

Figure 7: Cutting foam with hotwire and complete foam mold-Bowers, 2014

With all the stations cut and leveled on the table and the centerline marked on

each foam station the mold was ready to be taped together and covered with a thin plastic

to keep the concrete from adhering to the foam as seen in figure 8.

Figure 8: Taping stations together before pouring- Bowers, 2015

After the mold had been taped and covered with plastic it was ready for concrete.

In order to minimize concrete placement time, labor was divided between two teams: one

responsible for material proportioning and another responsible for concrete placement

within the mold. Materials were proportioned by mass using concrete test cylinders and

mixed in buckets. Each proportion of dry aggregates then were incorporated into a 5

gallon bucket followed immediately by admixture and water in order to minimize dust.

The concrete placement team then consolidated the aggregates, water, and admixture

with the cementations materials. During this consolidation, the materials were rapidly

mixed with a mortar paddle. The wet concrete was then ready to place inside the mold.

Roughly ½ inch of concrete was then applied via hands to the outside of the mold. The

precut geomesh reinforcing material was then placed on top of the initial layer before the

remaining layer of concrete was added. The reinforcement material was sealed inside the

concrete by pulling back the outer edges of reinforcement and filling the gap with wet

concrete. As the concrete was place it was troweled smooth to try and eliminate most of

the sanding process.

After a 21 day curing process via humidifier and controlled climate, the

canoe was prepared for finishing using primarily belt and rotary sanders. The canoe was

now ready for paint, sealer, and other finishing touches.

Environmental and economic sustainability incorporated in the canoe was

primarily incorporated in the formwork construction. The development of a reusable

mold for future competition years aids to limit the yearly waste of materials and money

that could be channeled into other aspects of the canoe design. It also keeps lumber,

foam, and other miscellaneous materials out of the landfill that are deemed useless at the

end of the competition year.

Proposed Project Schedule

August: Recruitment

Attend Student Government

Meeting (if applicable)

Advertise student

organization/recruitment

Update Orgsync roster and

pertinent Information

September: Buisness

Inventory and Reorder supplies

after rules released

Submit budget to alumni board

Visit sponsors if budget requires

October: Mold Creation

Design mold

o Design build process

o Design shape in

accordance with updated

rules

Actual Project Schedule

October

10/4/14: SGA Meeting

10/7/14: Submit Budget Requests

10/21/14: Alumni Presentation

10/24/14: Interest Meeting

10/31/14: Mold Build Completed

November

Mold Set Completed

December

12/11/14: Mold Preparation Began

12/31/14: Mold Preparation Ended

January

1/12/15: Concrete Placement

February

2/2/15: Canoe removed from mold

2/9/15: Canoe sanding finished

2/22/15: Started painting

Create Mold

November: Concrete Pouring

Preparation/concrete pouring

Curing Process

January: Canoe Finishing

Removal from mold

Sanding/Painting

February-March: Final Preparation

Complete report/notebook

Powerpoint

Tension cylinders

Compile products

Booth preparation: (displays, tables, stand, tent)

Order mold materials

Create canoe concrete mix design

References

Ginn, Casey (2013). “Canoe Report 2013” Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU), Marietta, GA.

http://poraver.com/sites/default/files/download/Poraver_Weigths_Dimensions_capacities.pdf

Mixture ID: Design Proportions (Non

SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions

Yielded Proportions YD

Design Batch Size (ft

3):

0.25

Cementitious Materials SG Amount (lb/yd

3)

Volume (ft

3)

Amount (lb)

Volume (ft

3)

Amount (lb/yd

3)

Volume (ft

3)

CM1 Portland Cement 3.15 694.75 2.041 6.43 2.041 695 2.041

CM2 Fly Ash 2.30 121.58 0.491 1.13 0.491 121.5 0.491

Total Cementitious Materials: 816.33 2.532 7.56 2.532 816.50 2.532

Fibers

F1 Nycon PVA 1.12 15.00 0.200 0.12 0.200 14.02 0.200

Total Fibers: 15.00 0.20 0.12 0.20 14.02 0.20

Aggregates

A1 Poarver 0.1-0.3 mm Abs: 1.93

0.69 30.40 0.406 0.28 0.406 30.50 0.406

A2

Poarver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 10.2

0.59 60.79 0.949 0.56 0.949 60.75 0.949

A3 Poarver 1-2mm Abs: 8.68

0.39 75.99 1.795 0.70 1.795 76.00 1.795

A4 Poarver 2-4mm Abs: 8.68

0.34 121.58 3.324 1.13 3.324 121.50 3.324

A5 3M IM16K Abs: 5.65 0.46 21.71 0.435 0.20 0.435 21.75 0.435

A3 K20 Abs: 6.02 0.20 60.79 2.800 0.56 2.800 61.00 2.800

Total Aggregates: 371.26 9.709 3.96 9.709 371.50 9.709

Water

W1 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)

1.00

260.34 4.17 2.41 0.039 260.50 4.17

W1a. Water from Admixtures

24.19

0.22

24.25

W1b. Additional Water 236.15 2.19 236.00

W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.00 69.67 0.65 69.75

Total Water (W1 + W2): 330.01 4.17 3.06 0.04 330.25 4.17

Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form

S1 None Used

Total Solids of Admixtures:

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

% Solids

Dosage

(fl/ oz/cwt)

Water in

Admixture (lb/yd

3)

Amount (fl oz)

Water in

Admixture (lb)

Dosage (fl oz/cwt)

Water in

Admixture (lb/yd

3)

Ad1 Acrylic 60 lb/gal 0.00 2164.84 27.78 25.00 0.32 2155.60 27.66

Water from Admixtures (W1a): 27.78 0.32 27.66

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.524 0.523 0.525

Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.404 0.405 0.404

Slump, Slump Flow, in. 0 +/- 0.25 in 0 +/- 0.25 in 0 +/- 0.25 in

M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1517.60 1514.80 1511.44

V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft

3

27.10 27.05 26.99

T

Theorectical Density, lb/ft3

= (M / V)

56.00 56.00 56.00

D Design Density, lb/ft

3 =

(M / 27) 56.21

D Measured Density, lb/ft3 56.93 57.40

A

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

6.20 6.94 7.01

Y Yield, ft

3 =

(M/ D) 27 27 27

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / YD)

1.043

Appendix B- Mixture Proportions

Appendix C- Bill of Materials

Material Quantity Unit Cost

Total

Cost

Portland Cement, Type I/II 376 lbs $9.45/94 lb bag $37.80

Fly Ash, Class C 5 gal Donated N/A

Poraver Expanded Glass

Aggregate 231 lbs

$400/ 231 lbs

shipment $400

iM16K Glass Bubbles Aggregate 5 gal $50/gal $250

K1 Glass Bubbles Aggregate 40 lbs $655/40 lbs $655

Force 10,000 D Silica Fume

Powder 70 lbs Donated N/A

ACRYL 60 Admixture 5 gal $148/5 gal $148

Semi-Gloss Paint 2 gal $28/gal $56

Concrete Sealer

Foam Mold, Complete

Lump

Sum $935 $935

Total Production Cost $2,444