university of california, los angeles concrete …...hakuna matata's 3/8" hull helped...
TRANSCRIPT
MERIDIAN 2013
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES CONCRETE CANOE DESIGN REPORT
MERIDIAN 2013
Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ii Project Management .......................................................................................................................1 Organization Chart ..........................................................................................................................2 Hull Design and Structural Analysis...............................................................................................3 Development and Testing ...............................................................................................................5 Construction ....................................................................................................................................7 Project Schedule..............................................................................................................................9 Design Drawing ............................................................................................................................ 10
List of Figures Figure 1: Project Time Allocation .................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Diagram of Internal Moment Along the Canoe Hull ...................................................... 4 Figure 3: Test Plate under 4-point bending ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Threaded Stud Cable System .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Flexural Test Showing the Strength Benefit of Basalt Reinforcement ........................... 6 Figure 6: CNC Foam Cutter and Test Cut ...................................................................................... 7 Figure 7: Male and Female Molds Cut from One Block ................................................................ 7 Figure 8: Male Mold After Two Coats of Epoxy ........................................................................... 8 Figure 9: Placing Concrete on Casting Day .................................................................................... 8
List of Tables Table 1: Meridian Concrete Properties .......................................................................................... ii Table 2: Meridian Specifications ................................................................................................... ii Table 3: Project Schedule Variances .............................................................................................. 1 Table 4: Performance Indicators for Hakuna Matata and Meridian ........................................... 3
List of Appendices Appendix A - References ........................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Mixture Proportions ............................................................................................ B-1 Appendix C - Bill of Materials .................................................................................................. C-1
i
MERIDIAN 2013
Table 2: Meridian Specifications
Table 1: Meridian Concrete Properties
Executive Summary The notion of longitude was first developed by the
Eratosthenes around 200 BC, but it wasn't until 100 AD that Ptolemy used a consistent meridian for a world map in his Geographia. Longitudes allowed for consistent geographic mapping and reliable navigation, upon which sailors often relied. Literally meaning ‘midday’, the word meridian can also describe the highest point or stage of development. For the UCLA Concrete Canoe Team, Meridian represents the culmination of nearly two decades of innovation and optimization in design, dating back to 1994. Meridian is centered around vintage cartography, paying homage to the innovative navigators of the past.
Since its inception in 1989, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Concrete Canoe team has been a member of the Pacific Southwest Conference (PSWC). In twenty-four years of participation, UCLA has qualified for the National Concrete Canoe Competition (NCCC) five times, with High Five (6th, 1994), Javelin (11th, 1996), Tsunami (5th, 1997), Archimedes (9th, 2008), and Premiere (16th, 2010). Over the past three years, UCLA has placed in the top three at PSWC with Premiere (2nd, 2010), Rock the Boat (3rd, 2011), and Hakuna Matata (3rd, 2012).
This year, our primary objectives were to substantially improve race performance and environmental sustainability. Secondary objectives included cost efficiency, implementation of innovative construction and fabrication methods, and volunteer recruitment and retention. Newly introduced features of UCLA Concrete Canoe addressed sustainability, cost efficiency, and continuity of design. The inclusion of crushed concrete as a sustainable aggregate, as well as the implementation and strict enforcement of quality control significantly lowered the project’s ecological impact. Project management focused on training, program expansion, and student volunteer involvement. A structured education program ensured
the advancement of knowledge between current and future project engineers. To improve cost efficiency, the team approached a new technique for fabricating the canoe mold; a dual mold system with both a male and female mold minimized the amount of concrete wasted during casting by ensuring uniform thickness throughout the canoe. The mold was cut with a student-made Computer Numerical Control (CNC) foam cutter, which greatly reduced the project budget.
The composite design for Meridian was based primarily on the improvements and successes of past years. While Rock the Boat achieved the strength the 2011 team was looking for, Hakuna Matata achieved the lightness and sleekness that the previous year lacked. This year, the team designed a new, sleek hull that is faster than its predecessors, while also improving the stability and seating area , allowing for superior racing comfort. Furthermore, the team substituted the crushed glass aggregate of Hakuna Matata’s crushed glass aggregate with an equivalently sustainable, yet more workable crushed concrete. Concrete properties are listed in Table 1 and canoe specs are shown in Table 2. With the changes made to the hull design, UCLA predicts that Meridian's balance of speed, tracking, comfort, and maneuverability will make it a worthy competitor.
Length 19’ 0”Width 2’ 4.6”Est. Weight 150 lbs
Depth 12.25”Thickness 3/8"Colors White, Brown, Blue, Black
Main Reinforcement Basalt Fiber Grid
Secondary Reinforcement
Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber
Polyethylene PulpPost-Tensioned Tendon 0.06” diameter
Properties Wet Unit Weight Dry Unit Weight Compressive Strength Modulus of Rupture Composite Flexural Strength
Structural 63.9 pcf 57.1 pcf 2877 psi 492 psi 2,280 psi
Patch Mix
61.34 pcf 56.6 pcf 2189 psi 367 psi 1,740 psi
ii
MERIDIAN 2013
Figure 1: Project Time Allocation
Project Management In order to optimize efficiency for the year-long
project, the management team focused on two main objectives: establish and maintain an effective budget and improve volunteer recruitment and retention. In order to achieve these goals, the Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager organized nine project directors into four categories: construction, mix design, final product, and paddling. The project managers oversaw budget and schedule development, volunteer education and director supervision. Three construction directors were responsible for mold fabrication, quality control on casting days, and implementation of the post tensioning system. The mix design team was responsible for the development and testing of 24 concrete mixes, while the paddling director was in charge of race training and assignments. Furthermore, Hakuna Matata's management team served as Senior Advisors, a position created the previous year. By dividing responsibility for the technical leadership, the directors could focus on completing their individual tasks quickly and effectively. Directors communicated frequently with management and amongst each other to ensure that goals were met and that the schedule was followed. 30 project volunteers contributed an estimated 2,325 man-hours toward the completion of Meridian. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of time allocated to the various aspects of the project.
In order to facilitate the timely completion of these objectives, management drafted an ambitious schedule to ensure major project goal completion. The project schedule, shown on page 9, details the execution dates for four major milestones and denotes the critical path. These critical elements include the construction of a computer controlled foam cutter, the execution of
multiple series of concrete mix tests, the development of a dual mold system, and final casting of the canoe. The team experienced 2 milestone variances during the project, summarized in Table 3.
Since budget efficiency was a primary concern, management weighed each task in overall competition score to help determine budget allocation. Funding concerns motivated the pursuit of material and monetary donations from local engineering firms and construction suppliers. An emphasis on the reuse of materials from previous projects helped reduce the overall cost of the project and ensure sustainable practices. Networking with donors and employing innovative new methods helped to keep the budget under $5,925, excluding transportation and conference registration costs, a 31% decrease in overall costs. The majority of these expenses consisted of stencils, exterior stains, and EPS foam.
Faced with the second lab space change in as many years, the team spared no expenses to ensure the safety of the volunteers. The management team worked closely with the UCLA ASCE chapter's safety officer to ensure that the new lab space was operating within conventional safety protocol. This included providing protective equipment, appropriate storage procedures, and equipment safety training. Project volunteers were also required to participate UCLA's Environment, Health and Safety laboratory safety training course.
While Hakuna Matata's managers perpetuated knowledge between project directors, a new emphasis was placed on the education of project volunteers. An emphasis on recruiting a sizeable group of dedicated new members. To ensure the present and future success , the team held orientation sessions, giving the volunteers the requisite knowledge to effectively assist project directors, which ultimately improved volunteer retention by fostering an atmosphere of inclusiveness. Efforts by the management team proved successful, and Meridian was completed with the help of a large and enthusiastic volunteer base.
Table 3: Project Schedule Variances Major Milestone Delay Cause CNC Cutter None Proper Scheduling Concrete Mix Tests None Proper Scheduling Dual Mold System 2 Weeks Purchase Order Complication Concrete Casting 2 Weeks Mold pushback
1
MERIDIAN 2013
2
Organization Chart
2
MERIDIAN 2013
Hull Design and Structural Analysis. Inspired by previous competition success,
Meridian's project managers decided to develop a hull optimized for three interdependent parameters: stability, speed, acceleration, and comfort. Hakuna Matata was designed for optimal acceleration and top speed; the Prismatic Coefficient, a measure of the narrowness of a canoe's bow and stern relative to its largest cross section, was decreased by 23% from the previous year. Unfortunately, the benefits of improved acceleration were offset by stability issues, and Hakuna Matata’s narrow, diamond-shaped design did not provide adequate room for four paddlers to comfortably fit during the coed race, complicating paddler coordination and attributing to further instability. However, management wanted to retain the sharp 7 degree entrance angle and narrow profile of Hakuna Matata for the superior speed and acceleration it provided.
With these design goals in mind, the team decided to blend the most desirable elements of Hakuna Matata with UCLA’s 1996 NCCC qualifying canoe, Javelin. An 18' flat bottomed canoe, Javelin was one of UCLA’s most versatile designs. Serving as one of the practice canoes, the paddling team has become familiar with its features, and the desirable aspects have thus been implemented in Meridian. As opposed to Hakuna Matata's diamond shaped design, Javelin has a full hull shape which stays wide for a longer hull portion, improving stability. Upon the paddling team's realization of Hakuna Matata's rapid acceleration and Javelin's superior handling and stability, a balanced design incorporated the corresponding features of both canoes into one optimized design. Several additional features were implemented to improve Meridian's maneuverability, buoyancy, and straight-line tracking. Canoes with more rocker typically display better turning capabilities, but additional rocker requires higher walls. This is because the ends are not as deep in the water and therefore provide less buoyancy. The rocker was slightly decreased from Hakuna Matata's 4.5" bow rocker and 3.5" stern rocker, instead using a 4.3" bow rocker and 2.4" stern rocker. Meridian was allocated these rocker values to optimize the balance between buoyancy and rocker. Meridian would retain
the handling benefits of high rocker while also keeping self-weight low by using shorter side-walls.
V-shaped hulls typically exhibit superior straight-line tracking than flat and round bottom canoes. In order to ensure excellent tracking, a shallow-v was designed for the bottom of the front half of the hull. The V-shape was limited to the bow after an observation by the paddling team that during turns, the bow is typically the pivot point around which the stern swings. The combination of a flat stern and v-shape bow maintains the ability to straight-track, while reducing drag during turns. The resulting combination of design elements ensures that Meridian can handle with ease, while providing sufficient stability to accommodate all race scenarios. Table 4 shows the performance indicators considered during the hull design.
Table 4 Performance Indicators for Hakuna Matata and Meridian
To determine how well the boat would accelerate, the prismatic coefficient of previous canoes was investigated. The prismatic coefficient is the ratio of the immersed hull volume to the volume of a prism with an area equal to the widest cross section and a length equal to the hull length. A lower prismatic coefficient corresponds to superior acceleration but inferior stability. The team determined that a higher coefficient coupled with a small entrance angle would provide an acceptable balance between speed and stability.
Hakuna Matata's 3/8" hull helped claim the title of lightest vessel at PSWC, weighing in at 120
Hakuna Matata Meridian
Waterline Length 18'-0.5" 19'-0"
Waterline Beam 26.94" 26.94"
Wetted Area 36.73 ft2 37.5 ft2
Entrance Angle 7° 5° Prismatic Coefficient 0.46 0.54
Freeboard 7" 5"
Rocker at Bow 4.5" 4.3"
Rocker at Stern 3.5" 2.4"
3
MERIDIAN 2013
lbs. Conversely, the 2011 canoe Rock the Boat weighed nearly 270 lbs and demonstrated the negative influence of weight on handling. The team decided to employ a ⅜” hull thickness to keep the lengthened hull weight to a minimum. Management also decided against the implementation of ribs, railings, and other methods of stiffening members that required additional material in order to minimize weight. Instead, Meridian would rely upon the development of a strong and flexible composite concrete mix.
After the hull was designed, the analyst determined the stresses that would likely be applied to Meridian's thin walls; to be thorough, multiple loading cases were considered in the analysis. A simply supported loading condition was initially considered as it represented a likely loading case during transportation and display, as a consequence of supporting the canoe at the ends without a midspan support. Another critical loading case was the cantilever loading scenario. This would occur when the canoe is placed directly on the ground, with only one point of contact along the bottom. These two conditions were subsequently analyzed, along with 3 loading cases corresponding with each race scenario: 2-person male; 2-person female; and 4-person coed. Thorough analysis revealed that the 4-person race was the critical loading scenario.
In order to determine the bending stresses within the hull, the analyst performed a beam style analysis. The canoe hull was partitioned into 19 discrete elements, each representing a 1' long segment. The width, surface area, waterline depth, and moment of inertia for each section were measured. The elements were then approximated as prisms so that the element properties could be used across the segment length. Next, the loading on each section was calculated. This loading accounted for water pressure, self-weight, supports, and paddler weight. To model the weight of the paddlers, four point loads were placed along the canoe, each weighing 200 lbs, 30 lbs more than UCLA’s heaviest paddler. This was done to ensure a minimum factor of safety of 1.2 for the worst case coed loading scenario. After modeling the scenarios, the moment applied at each cross-section was calculated in MATLAB, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2: Diagram of internal moment along the canoe hull
With the moments determined, the bending stresses were then calculated. Using the moment of inertia and centroid of each section, the maximum compressive and tensile bending stresses were calculated for every section of the canoe. Due to the low self weight of the canoe, the stresses induced due to bending in all cases were relatively low. The maximum tensile stress of 110 psi occurred during the four-person loading case, while the maximum compressive stress of 88 psi occurred during the simply supported scenario.
Further analysis was required to account for the water pressure's influence on the walls of the canoe. Using the water force, the analyst calculated the moment induced on each side wall, which would cause the walls to bend inward. The ⅜” thick bottom was then analyzed as the longitudinal cross-section resisting the moment. By determining the moment of inertia of the longitudinal cross-section, the stress distribution on the bottom could be calculated. The analyst determined the maximum tensile stress produced by the wall pressure to be 176 psi along the bottom of the canoe. In contrast, the maximum tensile stress due to bending occurred at the tops of the walls. Because they act on different areas, these two stresses do not superimpose. Therefore, the maximum tensile stress was determined to be 176 psi, and would occur in the gunnels during coed races.
From these results, the analyst was confident that structural damage would not occur during these loading conditions.
4
MERIDIAN 2013
Development and Testing Meridian’s mix team aimed to improve the
finishing qualities of the structural mix, reduce the overall density, and preserve strength and sustainability. The design team specified a hull thickness of ⅜”, meaning a new, lighter mix with strength comparable to Hakuna Matata's mix was required to satisfy the loading demands of competition. The team ran a series of tests to determine the influence of various aggregates and admixtures pertaining to the structural properties of the mix. By testing systematically, the team was able to optimize the use of each material to achieve a low density without adversely affecting structural properties or sustainability.
A variety of tests were performed to quantify the results of each test batch. These included four point bending (ASTM C947-03), compressive (ASTM C39), density, and slump (ASTM C 143) tests. Past experience determined flexural strength to be the critical testing parameter, since many past canoes have developed severe cracks as a result of cyclic flexing along their thin walls. Therefore, the majority of testing was done with 4-point bending tests on 6”x22”x0.5” concrete test plates, as shown in Figure 3. With this procedure, the flexural strength of eachmix was tested to determine its viability.
Figure 3: Test Plate under 4-point bending The mix team utilized Hakuna Matata’s mix
as a baseline for comparison, which itself represented several years of progress in strength and density optimization. The proportions of cementitious materials were kept the same as the baseline
proportions of Type 1 Portland Cement, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), and Vitreous Calcium Alumino-Silicate (VCAS). This ratio had been found optimal during last year’s project, and met our sustainability goal.
The first series of plates focused on testing the influence of latex, and admixture extensively used in UCLA concrete canoes in the past, though with minimal testing. The mix team’s goal was to find any correlation between latex content, density, and flexural strength. Beginning with the base mix, test plates were produced with varying latex contents, ranging from 2% to 11.5%. After interpreting the results, flexural strength was found to have a strong positive correlation with latex content, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Variation of strength with latex content
The team also noticed a general decrease in density with additional latex. Considering these results, the team decided to implement the maximum latex dose that would not cause over-hydration from water in the emulsion.
The next series of plates tested the effectiveness of a new recycled aggregate to replace last year’s crushed glass. The mix team sought an aggregate that was equally sustainable, but would be easier to cast and sand, improving the efficiency of retouching. The team decided to crush Rock the Boat's prototype, and implement the scrap concrete as aggregate for Meridian. This concrete was less dense than the crushed glass, and significantly easier to cast and sand. Recognizing its time-saving potential, the mix team decided to systematically test its structural properties. The concrete was crushed and sieved to achieve desired gradation. Next, the team tested with the baseline mix, replacing glass with crushed concrete. Multiple plates were cast with varying
5
MERIDIAN 2013
quantities and gradations of crushed concrete. Testing revealed that crushed concrete was an exceptional replacement for crushed glass; the recycled aggregate decreased the density of the baseline mix while maintaining a strength comparable to crushed glass. Due to its superior properties, recycled concrete was included in the aggregate blend, which consisted of Poraver recycled glass spheres and glass microspheres.
In order to test the effectiveness of a post-tensioning system which used steel tendons to create pre-stressed concrete, the team cast several plates to test various tensioning methods. While looking to create a self-contained tensioning system, the team tested the use of threaded studs crimped onto steel cables, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Threaded stud cable system
After curing, these studs were tightened by turning a nut, which then transferred the load to a small bearing plate. Using this method, cables were tightened to 200 pounds on each plate. Testing confirmed that the post-tensioning system increased flexural strength of the base mix by approximately 20% and decreased the permanent deformation due to bending.
To improve the workability of the structural mix, an air entrainer was used in conjunction with a superplasticizer. This combination allowed for a low water to cement ratio, thus increasing strength. For hydration, the cementitious materials in the final concrete mix were hydrated exclusively from the high dose of latex, which had only a 28.50% solids content. The desired water dose for aggregate absorption was also satisfied, in part, with the water from admixtures. The crushed concrete was the only aggregate brought to Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) condition with additional water.
As a result of successful tests from the previous year, two types of fibers were implemented in this year’s design: 8mm Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) fibers and Polyethylene Pulp. The two fibers significantly contributed to the flexural strength, and the varied fiber lengths improved concrete workability.
Once the concrete mix had been optimized for strength, density, and sustainability, the team shifted its focus to potential reinforcement materials. Alkali-Resistant Glass (ARG) mesh was historically employed for composite reinforcement. While ARG mesh was easy to work with, it minimally contributed to the secondary strength. The mix team decided to acquire a stiffer reinforcement material. After some research, the team decided against carbon fiber grid due to the cost and poor bonding characteristics of the smooth, epoxy coated fibers. Instead, a mesh of extruded basalt fibers was tested. Basalt fibers are nearly as strong as carbon fiber, and are significantly cheaper. Moreover, basalt is an environmentally friendly material harvested from abundant basaltic lava. The basalt mesh was uncoated, providing a rough surface which facilitated excellent bonding with concrete. Basalt reinforcement tests, as seen in Figure 6, yielded a dramatic increase in ultimate strength, from 910 psi to 2,280 psi in flexure.
Figure 6: Flexural test showing the strength benefit of basalt reinforcement
The final mix was compiled after completing these test series. A combination of diligent research and years of progress, this mix is one of the strongest and most sustainable mixes in UCLA history.
6
MERIDIAN 2013
Construction The construction team began the year looking
to enhance time-efficiency, lower the cost of form production, and produce a light, yet durable canoe. The team far surpassed expectations by pioneering several groundbreaking techniques.
At the onset of the year, the construction team decided that in order to minimize the amount of time required for finishing work, both a male and female mold would be prepared. However, professional machining of two molds was not financially feasible; the team had to devise a new procedure to build multiple expanded polystyrene (EPS) molds efficiently and inexpensively.
In order to cut the foam, the construction team designed a computerized hot wire foam cutter. Careful consultation with senior advisors led to the formation of blueprints for the CNC machine, shown in Figure 6. The plans consisted of four stepper motors whichwould turn both horizontal and vertical threaded rods. The movement of these rods would allow the cutting wire to trace out any two-dimensional curve. The two sides of the machine would be controlled independently, permitting tapered cuts. The cutter would interface with a computer, through which the motors would be controlled. Using AutoCAD drawings of the canoe cross-sections at 1' intervals, the construction team could produce specially formatted files for the machined production of the cross-sections.
The temperature of the steel cutting wire would be controlled by a variable transformer, which would enable an adjustable current to be run through the wire. By increasing the voltage, the wire
temperature would be increased, resulting in a faster cut.
After a difficult yet rewarding build, the construction team successfully produced a working CNC hot wire cutter. This machine allowed the team to accurately cut out both male and female forms from the same block of EPS foam. By using just one block to create two molds, the team achieved an unprecedented level of sustainability, as seen in Figure 7. Furthermore, UCLA will be able to machine its own molds from now on, as opposed to using expensive professional services, thus resulting in an estimated annual savings of $2,500.
Figure 7: Male and Female molds cut from one block
After cutting out each cross section, the blocks were then glued together into three main sections. The construction team decided to keep the flanges attached to the male mold, serving as a surface to catch any dropped concrete during casting, thus minimizing concrete waste. The blocks were sanded to ensure uniform curvature, and the foam surfaces were painted with a latex paint to prevent corrosion of the foam. Two layers of epoxy were spread over the form to create a smooth casting surface, as shown in Figure 8. Being mindful of sustainability goals, the construction team covered the male mold in wax paper and cast a fiberglass shell. This shell then served as a practice canoe, allowing the paddling team to acclimate to the new hull design without consuming the materials required for a prototype canoe. The fiberglass shell
Figure 6: CNC foam cutter and test cut
7
MERIDIAN 2013
was removed to prepare for concrete casting and the mold was treated with form release oil to aid in the demolding process.
Figure 8: Male mold after two coats of epoxy
Before casting, the construction team had to prepare the post-tensioning cable system. Six steel tendons were fed through Teflon tubing to prevent the steel from bonding with the concrete. Threaded studs were crimped on each end of the cables. A small bearing plate was placed to transfer the load from each stud, which were capped with a small nut.
On casting day, 25 project engineers worked a combined 125 hours to cast concrete in three layers onto the male mold, shown in Figure 9. Each engineer was given a specific task, such as concrete placement, mixing, or quality control. The layers of concrete, each with a 1/8" thickness, sandwiched two layers of basalt fiber reinforcement. The six steel tendons were placed within the middle concrete layer. The ends of the canoe were left uncast so that the nuts could be tightened onto the bearing plates after ample curing. During casting, the flanges on the male mold effectively caught excess concrete that fell off during placement, ensuring minimal waste on casting day.
Figure 9: Placing concrete on casting day
After the concrete, reinforcement, and cables had been placed, the directors performed a final quality control check to ensure suitable casting. After the final approval of the project managers, the female mold was placed on top of the concrete and the team repeatedly tapped the mold to encourage the consolidation of the concrete around the female form. With the female mold in place, a curing blanket was wrapped around both molds to seal any gaps in the mold and ensure a moist curing environment, free from undesirable environmental factors.
After two weeks of curing, the female mold was removed. Upon examining the concrete hull, it was clear that the female mold successfully retained moisture and had effectively smoothed the outer canoe surface. However, there were still areas that required additional treatment, most notable of which were the ends, where the cable plates were insufficiently secured to the concrete walls. These ends were repaired with additional concrete and given two weeks to cure. After the two weeks, the nuts were turned to pull the threaded studs, transferring the tensile load to the bearing plate and then the entire hull. Tightening each cable to 200 pounds produced a canoe with 1,200 pounds of post-tension reinforcement. After tensioning, the end sections were ready to be cast. Using shaped EPS foam pieces as guides, the construction team cast the ends. Select foam pieces were left in the ends to serve as floatation. Finally, the team patched and sanded any remaining aesthetic flaws.
With the canoe shaped, the hull was then smoothed using 200 and 400 grit sandpaper. The team then switched to 3000 grit diamond polishing pads. Once polishing was complete, stencils were applied for aesthetic accentuation. Using aerosol sprayers to apply color stains, the hull was decorated according to the project theme. Next, fine details were applied with paintbrushes. When the stains had sufficiently dried, the hull was treated with a penetrating concrete sealer. By the end of this construction process, UCLA had produced one of the strongest, most innovative, and sustainable canoes in school history.
8
MER
IDIAN
2013ID Task Name Duration Baseline Start Baseline Finish Start Finish
1 Materials and Mix Design 76 days Mon 9/24/12 Mon 1/7/13 Mon 9/24/12 Mon 1/7/13
2 Research 14 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/12/12 Mon 9/24/12 Thu 10/11/12
3 Mix Material Procurement 31 days Fri 10/12/12 Fri 11/23/12 Fri 10/12/12 Fri 11/23/12
4 All Materials Procured 11 days Mon 11/26/12Mon 12/10/12Mon 11/26/12Mon 12/10/12
5 Design And Testing 46 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 11/23/12 Mon 9/24/12 Mon 11/26/12
6 Mix Design Phase 1 10 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12 Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12
7 Phase 1 Plate Testing 1 day Fri 10/12/12 Fri 10/12/12 Fri 10/12/12 Fri 10/12/12
8 Mix Design Phase 2 15 days Mon 10/15/12 Fri 10/26/12 Mon 10/15/12 Fri 11/23/12
9 Phase 2 Plate Testing 1 day Fri 11/2/12 Fri 11/2/12 Fri 11/2/12 Fri 11/2/12
10 Mix Design Phase 3 10 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 11/16/12 Mon 11/5/12 Fri 11/16/12
11 Phase 3 Plate Testing 11 days Fri 11/23/12 Fri 11/23/12 Fri 11/23/12 Thu 1/10/13
12 Mix Finalized 1 day Fri 11/23/12 Fri 11/23/12 Mon 11/26/12Mon 11/26/12
13 Weigh Final Batches 1 day Mon 1/7/13 Mon 1/7/13 Mon 1/7/13 Mon 1/7/13
14 Hull Design and Analysis 20 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/19/12 Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/19/12
15 Design Research 10 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12 Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12
16 Design Coordinates 3 days Mon 10/8/12 Wed 10/10/12Mon 10/8/12 Wed 10/10/12
17 Model in Solidworks 3 days Wed 10/10/12 Fri 10/12/12 Wed 10/10/12 Fri 10/12/12
18 Hull Analysis 6 days Fri 10/12/12 Fri 10/19/12 Fri 10/12/12 Fri 10/19/12
19 Theme and Graphic Design 112 days Fri 8/31/12 Mon 2/4/13 Fri 8/31/12 Mon 2/4/13
20 Theme Conceptualization 16 days Fri 8/31/12 Fri 9/21/12 Fri 8/31/12 Fri 9/21/12
21 Theme Selection 1 day Mon 9/24/12 Mon 9/24/12 Mon 9/24/12 Mon 9/24/12
22 Design Illustration 20 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/19/12 Tue 9/25/12 Mon 10/22/12
23 Choose Materials 10 days Mon 10/22/12 Fri 11/2/12 Mon 10/22/12 Fri 11/2/12
24 Order Stain and Pigment 1 day Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12
25 Order Stencils 1 day Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12 Mon 11/5/12
26 Tabletop and Stands 16 days Mon 1/14/13 Mon 2/4/13 Mon 1/14/13 Mon 2/4/13
27 Illustration 5 days Mon 1/14/13 Fri 1/18/13 Mon 1/14/13 Fri 1/18/13
28 Choose Materials 1 day Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13
29 Construction 1 day Mon 2/4/13 Mon 2/4/13 Mon 2/4/13 Mon 2/4/13
30 Construction 110 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 2/22/13 Mon 9/24/12 Fri 2/22/13
31 Research 10 days Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12 Mon 9/24/12 Fri 10/5/12
32 Tensioning Concepts 15 days Mon 10/8/12 Fri 10/26/12 Mon 10/8/12 Fri 10/26/12
33 CNC Materials Procurement 10 days Mon 10/8/12 Fri 10/19/12 Mon 10/8/12 Fri 10/19/12
34 CNC Assembly 21 days Fri 10/19/12 Fri 11/16/12 Mon 11/19/12Mon 12/17/12
35 Foam Procurement 15 days Mon 10/29/12 Fri 11/16/12 Mon 10/29/12 Fri 11/16/12
36 CNC Foam 11 days Fri 11/16/12 Fri 11/30/12 Fri 11/16/12 Fri 11/30/12
37 Foam Assembled 1 day Fri 11/30/12 Fri 11/30/12 Fri 11/30/12 Fri 11/30/12
38 Mold Preparation 11 days Fri 11/30/12 Fri 12/14/12 Fri 11/30/12 Fri 12/14/12
39 Final Casting Day 1 day Fri 1/11/13 Fri 1/11/13 Fri 1/11/13 Fri 1/11/13
40 Final Curing 11 days Fri 1/11/13 Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/11/13 Fri 1/25/13
41 Demold Final 1 day Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13 Fri 1/25/13
42 Final Tension 1 day Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13
43 Cutaway Construction 5 days Mon 2/18/13 Fri 2/22/13 Mon 2/18/13 Fri 2/22/13
44 Finishing (Final) 44 days Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/29/13 Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/29/13
45 Patching 24 days Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/1/13 Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/1/13
46 Sanding 24 days Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/1/13 Tue 1/29/13 Fri 3/1/13
47 Stencils Applied 3 days Mon 3/4/13 Wed 3/6/13 Mon 3/4/13 Wed 3/6/13
48 Graphics Application 12 days Thu 3/7/13 Fri 3/22/13 Thu 3/7/13 Fri 3/22/13
49 Sealer Applied 1 day Mon 3/25/13 Mon 3/25/13 Mon 3/25/13 Mon 3/25/13
50 Polish 4 days Tue 3/26/13 Fri 3/29/13 Tue 3/26/13 Fri 3/29/13
51 Design Report 31 days Mon 1/7/13 Mon 2/18/13 Mon 1/7/13 Mon 2/18/13
52 First Article Drafts 10 days Mon 1/7/13 Fri 1/18/13 Mon 1/7/13 Fri 1/18/13
53 Rough Draft Compilation 2 days Fri 1/18/13 Mon 1/21/13 Fri 1/18/13 Mon 1/21/13
54 First Edits 5 days Mon 1/21/13 Fri 1/25/13 Mon 1/21/13 Fri 1/25/13
55 Revision 1 Compiled 1 day Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13
56 Second Edits (Graduate Students and Senior Advisor)
11 days Mon 1/28/13 Mon 2/11/13 Mon 1/28/13 Mon 2/11/13
57 Final Draft Compiled 1 day Mon 2/11/13 Mon 2/11/13 Mon 2/11/13 Mon 2/11/13
58 Printing and Binding 1 day Fri 2/15/13 Fri 2/15/13 Fri 2/15/13 Fri 2/15/13
59 Mail Reports 1 day Mon 2/18/13 Mon 2/18/13 Mon 2/18/13 Mon 2/18/13
60 Oral Presentation 30 days Mon 2/18/13 Fri 3/29/13 Mon 2/18/13 Fri 3/29/13
61 Visual Presentation 10 days Mon 2/18/13 Fri 3/1/13 Mon 2/18/13 Fri 3/1/13
62 Verbal Presentation 5 days Mon 3/4/13 Fri 3/8/13 Mon 3/4/13 Fri 3/8/13
63 Practice 15 days Mon 3/11/13 Fri 3/29/13 Mon 3/11/13 Fri 3/29/13
64 Paddling 96 days Sat 11/10/12 Fri 3/29/13 Sat 11/17/12 Mon 4/1/13
65 Tryouts 0 days Sun 2/10/13 Sun 2/10/13 Sun 2/10/13 Sun 2/10/13
66 Team Selected 0 days Sun 2/10/13 Sun 2/10/13 Sun 3/10/13 Sun 3/10/13
67 Events Assigned 0 days Sun 2/17/13 Sun 2/17/13 Sun 2/17/13 Sun 2/17/13
68 Practice 96 days Sat 11/17/12 Fri 3/29/13 Sat 11/17/12 Mon 4/1/13
69 PSWC 4 days Thu 4/4/13 Tue 4/9/13 Thu 4/4/13 Tue 4/9/13
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7Sep '12 Oct '12 Nov '12 Dec '12 Jan '13 Feb '13 Mar '13 Apr '13
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Group By Summary
Rolled Up Task
Rolled Up Critical Task
Rolled Up Milestone
Rolled Up Progress
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration‐only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start‐only
Finish‐only
Deadline
Critical Task
Progress
Page 1
Project: Canoe Schedule, 9.30
Final Schedule
9
10
MERIDIAN 2013
Appendix A - References 3M. (2011). “3M™ Glass Bubbles K15.” <http://solutions.3m.com/en_US/>. 2 February 2011.
Anagnostopoulos, C. A., & Anagnostopoulos, A. C. (2002).“Polymer-cement mortars for
repairing ancient masonries mechanical properties.” Construction and Building Materials, 16
(17), 379-384.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete.” C138/C138M-01a, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2002). “ Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam
with Third-Point Loading).” C79-02, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2003). “Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Field.”C31/31M-03a, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2003). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete.”
C143/C143M-03,West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2004). “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and
Absorption of Fine Aggregate.” C128-04a, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2005). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens."C39/C39M-05, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (2008). “Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete.” C 1116.
ASTM (2008). “Standard Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in
Concrete and Mortars.” C 989.
ASTM (2008). “Standard Specification for Latex and Powder Modifiers for Hydraulic Cement
Concrete and Mortar.” C 1438.
ASTM (2009). “Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete.” C979-05,
West Conshohocken,PA.
Esteves, L. P., Cachim, P. B., & Ferreira, V. M. (2010). “Effect of fine aggregate on the rheology
properties of high performance cement-silica systems.” Construction and Building Materials,
24 (5), 640-649.
Hossain, A. B., Shirazi, S. A., Persun, J., & Neithalath, N. (2008). “Properties of Concrete
Containing Vitreous Calcium Aluminosilicate Pozzolan.” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board (2070), 32-38.
Kato, J., & Ramm, E. (2010). “Optimization of fiber geometry for fiber reinforced composites
considering damage.” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 46 (5), 401-415.
A-1
MERIDIAN 2013
Lafarge North America. (2003). “Lafarge sees no end to Slag Cement growth.”
<http://lafargenorthamerica.com/Conc%20Prods%206-03%20Newcem.pdf>
Li, V.C., (1997). “Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC ) – Tailored Composites Through
Micromechanical Modeling.” Fiber Reinforced Concrete: Present and the Future, N.
Banthia, A.Bentur, and A. Mufti, Canadian Society of Civil Engineers.
Li, V.C. (2003). “On Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) – A Review of the Material
and its Applications.” J Adv Concrete Technol., 1(3):215–230.
Majumdar, A. J., & Nurse, R. W. (1974). “Glass Fibre Reinforced Cement.” Materials Science
and Engineering, 15 (2-3), 107-127.
Mehta, P., & Monteiro, P. (2006). Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials. New
York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
Passuello, A., Moriconi, G., & Shah, S. P. (2009). “Cracking behavior of concrete with shrinkage
reducing admixtures and PVA fibers.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 31 (10), 699-704.
Portland Cement Association. (2011). “Prestressed Concrete.”
<http://www.cement.org/basics/concreteproducts_prestressed.asp>.
Ray, I., Gupta, A. P., & Biswas, M. (1994). “Effect of latex and superplasticizer on Portland
cement mortar in the fresh state.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 16 (4), 309-316.
Sirijaroonchai, K., El-Tawil, S., Parra-Montesinos, G. (2009). “Behavior of high performance
fiber reinforced cement composites under multi-axial compressive loading.” Cement &
Concrete Composites,32, 62-71.
University of California – Los Angeles Concrete Canoe. (2008). “Archimedes.” NCCC Design
Paper, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
University of California – Los Angeles Concrete Canoe. (2009). “Neptune.” NCCC Design
Paper, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
University of California, Los Angeles, Concrete Canoe. (2010). “Premiere.” NCCC Design
Paper, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
University of California – Los Angeles Concrete Canoe. (2011). “Rock the Boat.” NCCC Design
Paper. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
University of California – Los Angeles Concrete Canoe. (2012). "Hakuna Matata." NCCC
Design Paper. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
A-2
MERIDIAN 2013
Vitro Minerals. (2011). “VCAS White Pozzolans.”
< http://www.vitrominerals.com/?page_id=55>. 1February 2011.
Wang, C. M. (1995). “Timoshenko Beam-Bending Solutions in Terms of Euler-Bernoulli
Solutions.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 121 (6), 763-765.
Zivica, V. (2009). “Effects of the very low water/cement ratio.” Construction and Building
Materials,23 (12), 3579-3582.
A-3
MERIDIAN 2013
YD
Amount Volume Amount Volume Amount Volume
(lb/yd³) (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (lb/yd³) (ft³)
CM1 3.15 266.01 1.353 9.85 0.050 268.22 1.365
CM2 2.89 133.01 0.738 4.93 0.027 134.11 0.744
CM3 2.60 266.01 1.640 9.85 0.061 268.22 1.653
665.04 3.731 24.63 0.138 670.56 3.762
F1 1.30 10.74 0.132 0.40 0.005 10.83 0.134
F2 0.96 10.74 0.179 0.40 0.007 10.83 0.181
21.49 0.312 0.80 0.012 21.66 0.314
A1 Abs: [25%] 0.15 47.50 5.075 1.76 0.188 47.90 5.117
A2 Abs: [35%] 0.71 85.50 1.930 3.17 0.071 86.22 1.946
A3 Poraver .25-.5 Abs: [30%] 0.59 85.50 2.322 3.17 0.086 86.22 2.342
A4 Poraver .5-1 Abs: [25%] 0.47 85.50 2.915 3.17 0.108 86.22 2.940
A5 Abs: 35.00% 1.26 104.03 1.323 3.85 0.049 104.90 1.334
408.05 13.566 15.11 0.502 411.44 13.679
W1 289.30 4.636 10.71 0.172 294.13 4.714
289.30 10.71 294.13
0.00 0.00 0.00
W2 1.00 36.41 1.35 36.11
325.71 4.636 12.06 0.172 330.24 4.714
S1 Latex 1.04 108.72 1.675 4.03 0.062 109.62 1.689
108.72 1.68 4.03 0.062 109.62 1.69
Ad1 8.8 lb/gal 28.50% 834.31 272.741 205.50 10.102 841.24 277.29
Ad2 8.5 lb/gal 7.55% 1.82 0.743 0.45 0.028 1.84 0.76
Ad3 9.05 lb/gal 38.60% 54.78 15.816 13.49 0.586 55.23 16.08
289.30 10.71 294.13
M
V
T = (M / V)
D = (M / 27)
D
A
Y = (M / D)
Ry = (Y / Y D )
1.00
Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)
W1a. Water from Admixtures
Portland Cement
Design Batch Size (ft³) 1
PE
PVA
Crushed Concrete
Poraver .1-.3
2 ± 1
0.490
0.400
2.00
0.492
0.400
27
11.4%
56.63
63.92
23.920
1529.00
63.92
0.886
56.63
2.00
0.490
0.400
24.157
1543.52
0.992
0.992
10.7%
57.100
63.89
27
10.6%
57.100
K15
YieldedActual BatchedDesign Proportions
Pozzolanic Slag
Mixture ID: FINAL STRUCTURAL
VCAS
Total Cementitious Materials:
Air Entrainer
Latex
Water from Admixtures (W1a) :
Slump, Slump Flow, in .
Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio
Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio
Relative Yield
Yield, ft ³
Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%]
Measured Density, lb/ft ³
Design Density, lb/ft ³
Water
Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and Dyes
W1b. Additional Water
Water for Aggregates, SSD
Theoretical Density, lb/ft ³
Amount (fl
oz)
Water in
Admixture
(lb)
Dosage (fl
oz/cw t)
Water in
Admixture
(lb/yd³)
Dosage (fl
oz/cw t)
Water in
Admixture
(lb/yd³)
Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft ³
Mass of Concrete, lbs
Water Reducer
Total Aggregates
Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)
Total Solids of Admixtures
SG
% Solids
Total Fibers:
Cementitious Materials
Aggregates
Fibers
Total Water (W1+W2):
Appendix B - Mixture Proportions
B-1
MERIDIAN 2013
YD
Amount Volume Amount Volume Amount Volume
(lb/yd³) (ft³) (lb) (ft³) (lb/yd³) (ft³)
CM1 3.15 297.29 1.51 5.51 0.03 297.37 1.51
CM2 2.89 148.65 0.82 2.75 0.02 148.68 0.82
CM3 2.60 297.29 1.83 5.51 0.03 297.37 1.83
743.24 4.17 13.76 0.08 743.42 4.17
F1 1.30 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
F2 0.96 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000
A1 Abs: [25%] 0.15 53.09 5.672 0.98 0.105 53.10 5.673
A2 Abs: [35%] 0.71 95.56 2.157 1.77 0.040 95.58 2.157
A3 Poraver .25-.5 Abs: [30%] 0.59 95.56 2.596 1.77 0.048 95.58 2.596
A4 Poraver .5-1 Abs: [25%] 0.47 95.56 3.258 1.77 0.060 95.58 3.259
A5 Abs: 35.00% 1.26 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
339.77 13.683 6.29 0.253 339.85 13.686
W1 323.32 5.18 5.99 0.10 323.48 5.18
323.32 5.99 323.48
0.00 0.00 0.00
W2 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
323.32 5.181 5.99 0.096 323.48 5.184
S1 Latex 1.04 121.50 1.87 2.25 0.035 121.53 1.87
121.50 1.87 2.25 0.035 121.53 1.87
Ad1 8.8 lb/gal 28.50% 834.31 304.813 114.83 11.289 834.52 304.964
Ad2 8.5 lb/gal 7.55% 1.82 0.831 0.25 0.031 1.82 0.831
Ad3 9.05 lb/gal 38.60% 54.78 17.676 7.54 0.655 54.79 17.684
323.32 11.97 323.48
M
V
T = (M / V)
D = (M / 27)
D
A
Y = (M / D)
Ry = (Y / Y D )
Total Aggregates
Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)
Total Solids of Admixtures
SG
% Solids
Total Fibers:
Cementitious Materials
Aggregates
Fibers
Total Water (W1+W2):
Theoretical Density, lb/ft ³
Amount (fl
oz)
Water in
Admixture
(lb)
Dosage (fl
oz/cw t)
Water in
Admixture
(lb/yd³)
Dosage (fl
oz/cw t)
Water in
Admixture
(lb/yd³)
Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft ³
Mass of Concrete, lbs
Water Reducer
Relative Yield
Yield, ft ³
Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%]
Measured Density, lb/ft ³
Design Density, lb/ft ³
Water
Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and Dyes
W1b. Additional Water
Water for Aggregates, SSD
Air Entrainer
Latex
Water from Admixtures (W1a) :
Slump, Slump Flow, in .
Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio
Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio
K15
YieldedActual BatchedDesign Proportions
Pozzolanic Slag
Mixture ID: FINISHING
VCAS
Total Cementitious Materials:
24.913
1528.28
1.000
0.500
7.7%
56.600
61.34
27
7.7%
56.600
61.34
0.461
28.29
2.75
0.435
0.400
27
7.8%
56.59
61.34
24.905
1527.82
2 ± 1.00
0.435
0.400
2.75
0.435
0.400
1.00
Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)
W1a. Water from Admixtures
Portland Cement
Design Batch Size (ft³) 0.5
PE
PVA
Crushed Concrete
Poraver .1-.3
B-2
MERIDIAN 2013
Appendix C - Bill of Materials
Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Price Type 1 White Portland Cement 28.09 lbs $0.19 / lb $5.34
Slag, Grade 116 14.04 lbs $0.17 / lb $2.39
VCAS 28.09 lbs $0.30 / lb $8.43
Poraver .1-.3 mm 9.03 lbs $0.955 / lb $8.62
Poraver .25-.5 mm 9.03 lbs $0.955 / lb $8.62
Poraver .5-1 mm 9.03 lbs $0.955 / lb $8.62
Crushed Concrete Aggregate 10.98 lbs $0.015 / lb $0.16
K15 Glass Bubbles 5.02 lbs $11.50 / lb $57.73
Plastol 6200ext .300 gal $15.00 / gal $4.50
MBAE (Air Entrainer) .0137 gal $5.06 / gal $0.07
Akkro-7T (Latex) 5.08 gal $20.00 / gal $101.60
Basalt Fiber Mesh 152 sq ft $1.55 / sq ft $235.60
8 mm PVA Fibers 1.13 lbs $8.15 / lb $9.21
Polyethylene Fiber Pulp 1.13 lbs $3.14 / lb $3.55
Steel Aircraft Cable 114 ft $0.08 / ft $9.12
Teflon Tubing 114 ft $0.18 / ft $20.52
Steel Bearing Plate 1 plate $1.00 / plate $1.00
Mechanical Nuts 12 nuts $0.04 / nut $0.48
Threaded Studs 12 studs $1.00 / stud $12.00
Concrete Dye 2 qt $24.95 / qt $49.90
Sealer 1 gal $26.00 / gal $26.00
Wire Cut Foam Mold Lump Sum $721.72 $721.72
Total Production Cost $1,295.18
C-1