PPPeeerrr AAAnnnggguuussstttaaa iiinnn AAAuuuggguuussstttaaa ––– TTThhhrrrooouuuggghhh DDDiiiffffffiiicccuuullltttiiieeesss tttooo GGGrrreeeaaattt TTThhhiiinnngggsss iii

TABLE OF CONTENTST CT CAABBLLEE OOFF OONNTTEENNTTSS Per Angusta in Augusta - Executive Summary i Alea Iacta Est – Hull Design 1 Scito te Ipsum – Analysis 2 Respice, Adspice, Prospice - Development and Testing 3 Sic Itur ad Astra - Project Management and Construction 5 E Pluribus Unum – Organization Chart 7 Qui Non Est Hodie Cras Minus Aptus Erit - Project Schedule 8 Design Drawings 9 Appendicies Appendix A: References and Bibliography A-1 Appendix B: Mixture Proportions B-1 Appendix C: Gradation Curves and Tables C-1

PER ANGUSTA IN AUGUSTA - EXECUTIVE SUM ARYP E S-P E S-EERR AANNGGUUSSTTAA IINN AAUUGGUUSSTTAA XXEECCUUTTIIVVEE UUMMMMMAARRYY

Founded in 1827, the University of Toronto is located in the heart of Toronto and has grown into Canada’s leading research university. With over 4,300 undergraduate engineers enrolled over 9 engineering disciplines, and an overall enrollment of over 65,000 students, the University of Toronto is also the largest university in Canada. Our team mirrors this diversity by deriving members from all disciplines to comprise our dedicated membership of over 30 students.

This year will mark the 32nd

anniversary of the American National Concrete Canoe Competition and the 12th year of the University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team’s participation in the Canadian regional contest. Prior to Classified’s 5th place finish in Windsor last year, our three previous canoes, Nikko, Prospero, and Canoe du Jour, have ranked third at competition, often taking home the best spirit award, preceded by our 2nd place finish in 2001. We look to revive our winning tradition with this year’s hull design and mix expertise. Excelling in innovative design and analysis using CFD and FEA software, and a rigorous mix design program unparalleled by previous years, the Argonauts proudly present VITRUVIUS, the 2006 University of Toronto Concrete Canoe.

GENERAL PROPERTIES

Maximum Length 6150mm Maximum Width 600mm Maximum Depth 320mm Average Thickness 13mm Overall Weight 85 kg Colour Sandstone Mesh Reinforcement AR-Glass

Fiber Reinforcement Basalt and Polypropylene

OUTER MIX PROPERTIES Density 1010 kg/m3

Compressive Strength (28d.) 17.6 MPa Modulus of Rupture (28d.) 3 MPa

INNER MIX PROPERTIES Density 933 kg/m3

Compressive Strength (28d.) 16.4 MPa Modulus of Rupture (28d.) 2.7 MPa

COMPOSITE PROPERTIES Flexural Strength (28d.) 5 MPa Number of Reinforcing Layers 3

AAAllliiiaaa IIIaaaccctttaaa EEEsssttt ––– TTThhheee DDDiiieee iiisss CCCaaasssttt 111

ALEA IACTA EST - HULL DESIGNA - H DA - H DLLEEAA IIAACCTTAA EESSTT UULLLL EESSIIGGNN Overview

The main goal of this year with regards to hull design was to restructure and push towards a reliable creation, analysis, and testing system for current and future canoe entries. The software choice of Matlab and SolidWorks streamlined the hull design process from previous years, and will provide a strong backbone for future teams. The hull design is detailed in this section, and the results of the analysis in the next. Shape Generation and Modeling

Based on procedures developed over previous years, Matlab was used for the canoe’s initial shape generation. Hull guidelines and dimensions were entered into the code, and mathematical formulae were applied to provide best-fit curves in a canoe shape.

Hard constraints were determined at the beginning, before any other decisions were made. The length of the canoe had to be at most 20 feet due to the casting space available. Since length corresponds to the maximum wave speed of the canoe, and 20 feet was a manageable length for us to handle and transport, this was chosen as the final length of the canoe.

The other criterion was that of the paddlers’ comfort in terms of width of the canoe. They were each interviewed and assessed, and a minimum width of 20 inches was chosen. Further, to accommodate the four paddler racing scheme, the length of the paddlers’ box was chosen to be 180 inches.

Multiple initial canoe models were generated around these hard constraints and scrutinized by the team and paddling experts to decide on the final design.

From this final design, cross-section curves were obtained and imported into SolidWorks. Around this basic shape, a full and final model was created complete with proper thickness, ribs, and gunnels. The full model also provided the basis for our structural analysis, predictions, and the male mold for casting.

Shape Determination The general shape of the canoe is similar

to previous years. Hydrodynamics were considered during the design process to lower the hull drag and reduce turbulence on the shape. As several previous years’ canoes had shown, a longitudinally-asymmetrical canoe with smooth curves and a sharp entry provides a reasonable basis to form our canoe around.

Following from the hard constraints listed previously, the widest point at 23.5 inches is located 140 inches from the bow. An elliptical bottom is utilized for minimizing the wetted surface area, but is made slightly square for increased stability. The overall width is a balance between concerns for paddlers’ comfort, smooth cross sectional progression along the canoe’s length, and desire to have the highest possible length-to-width ratio. A flare angle on the freeboard was chosen to be 10° for matters of stability and casting, and ribs and gunnels were introduced to provide structural support and comfort for the paddlers. The locations of the five ribs were designed to provide the optimal support for each paddler. These ribs are 3 inches wide, smooth-edged, and are each 1 inch thicker than the rest of the canoe. Other Dimensions

Based on the result of our 2004 canoe, Nikko, riding too high in the water (at 13.5 inches overall depth) and 2005’s Classified riding too low (at 10.8 inches), VITRUVIUS’ total height is a compromise at 12.5 inches. The rockers are designed at a moderate 3 and 4 inches fore and aft, respectively, and vary elliptically to their endpoints. The motivation for these choices is to reduce the hull drag and weight, and to allow for easy tracking (as most of the races focus on straight sprints) without compromising turning ability. The numbers were picked slightly conservatively so to err on the side of tracking as turning ability can and does depend more on the paddlers’ skill.

SSSccciiitttooo ttteee IIIpppsssuuummm ––– KKKnnnooowww TTThhhyyyssseeelllfff 222

SCITO TE IPSUM - ANALYSISS - AS - ACCIITTOO TTEE IIPPSSUUMM NNAALLYYSSIISS Overview

Building off the successes of previous year’s hull design and analysis procedures, this year we further utilized computational software to analyze the developed canoe shape. Past years used Computational Fluid Dynamics and Finite Element Analysis software to determine ideal hydrodynamic and structural design parameters. This year’s analysis was conducted using a combination of a CFD software addition to SolidWorks, and the use of ANSYS’ FEA capabilities. The goal of the structural analysis was to determine the canoe’s required material and design properties based on theoretical von Mises stress and deformation distributions under two, three, and four-paddler loading situations. Computational Fluid Dynamics

The analysis of the canoe consisted of two separate aspects – CFD and FEA. CFD analysis was conducted using a SolidWorks addition, and so the model was directly copied from the SolidWorks design space. This ease of transition allowed us to compare different hull design aspects such as chine, rocker, and entry angle and understand how their modifications relate to canoe performance. Through this process, optimal design characteristics were determined for the chine to balance stability and wetted surface area, and the rocker to balance tracking and maneuverability. The overall results of this analysis were used to provide general shape guidelines for the final design and provided no quantitative data.

Finite Element Analysis

The FEA, however, proceeded using a separate program, ANSYS. This program was not compatible with the final SolidWorks model, so

the simpler Matlab model was modified and used as the basis for the analysis. The canoe was meshed with rectangular shell elements, so to represent the actual model in a mathematically friendly method.

Loads were applied by approximating the water force by a pressure gradient on the outside hull below an estimated waterline, while the paddlers were modeled as 80 kg masses occupying two 4 in by 4 in square areas on each rib to represent each knee of the

paddler in the conventional paddling stance. To minimize the

computational load during analysis, the ends were fixed in space while

the rest of the canoe was free to move. Unfortunately, this approach created

unrepresentative stress concentration and exaggerated deformations at the

endpoints. However, the ends of the canoe effectively experiences in reality a no-load

situation as compared to the rest of the canoe, thus they can be ignored when considering the

stress distribution without losing any robustness of the solution. Results

Results from the FEA analysis produced three stress distributions for the three different paddler loading situations. As can be seen by the three-paddler stress distribution (shown here), the small stresses (in blue) are located in the side walls and close to the bow and stern of the canoe, while the largest stresses (in red and grey) appear along the gunnel around the midpoint of the canoe. Also apparent are the stress singularities at either end due to the displacement restrictions at these points.

This analysis model resulted in a maximum stress of 3.7 MPa in the four-paddler situation, 3.4 MPa in the three-paddler situation, and 2.8 MPa in the two-paddler situation. The minimum factor of safety, as a result, was 1.35.

RRReeessspppiiiccceee,,, AAAdddssspppiiiccceee,,, PPPrrrooossspppiiiccceee ––– LLLooooookkk tttooo ttthhheee PPPaaasssttt,,, ttthhheee PPPrrreeessseeennnttt,,, ttthhheee FFFuuutttuuurrreee 333

RESPICE, ADSPICE, PROSPICE - DEVELOPMENT AND TESTINGR

SEM image of concrete fracture

REESSPPIICCEE,, AADDSSPPIICCEE, - D T, - D TPPRROOSSPPIICCEE EEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT AANNDD EESSTTIINNGG Overview Concrete mix design began using last year’s mix as a baseline. Initial research was conducted to determine suitable lightweight aggregates capable of producing concrete with satisfactory strength while minimizing density. The aggregates selected were foamed glass spheres, cenospheres and hollow glass microspheres. The aggregate proportions were formulated to maximize fineness and minimize density while adhering to the gradation requirements denoted by ASTM C33 [1]. This resulted in an aggregate blend with an overall dry specific gravity of 0.41. Due to the new rule requiring a minimum aggregate mass of 25% of the total concrete mass it was necessary to carefully replace some of the foamed glass spheres and hollow glass microspheres with the higher density cenospheres while making sure not to compromise the gradation curve of the aggregate composite. Testing During each phase of the research, the trial mixes were cast in 2 x 2 x 12 inch prisms and cured for 28 days at 90% relative humidity. Following curing they were tested in flexure using a three point bend set-up with a 1mm/min loading rate to determine modulus of rupture and maximum deflection. Following the selection of mixes for use in the canoe the compressive strength was determined by testing 52mm diameter cylinders in compression. The selected aggregates, along with binders, fibers and admixtures, were mixed in various proportions to develop the final VITRUVIUS mixture. Optimal strength, density, cost and workability was obtained using a mix of 78% Type 1 Portland Cement and 22% Class C Fly Ash. In addition it was determined that acrylic latex added at 10% by weight of cementicious materials provided the greatest improvement in flexural strength and workability. Following the determination of the aggregate proportions and the binder makeup it was necessary to determine the best type of the

fibrous reinforcement to be used in the concrete and the optimal volume of fibers, aggregate and binder to be used in the mix. Last year’s mix design was considered which incorporated 1 vol% 25mm polypropylene fibers. These fibers proved to be quite strong; however they severely reduced the workability of the concrete and inter-layer bonding, so new fibers were tested including 50µm wollastonite microfibers [2] and 12mm basalt fibers. Based on test results, inclusion of 1.6 vol% wollastonite microfibers approximately doubled flexural strength and also significantly increased flexural toughness. The wollastonite also decreased the workability of the mix; however, this was mitigated slightly by changing to wollastonite coated with a proprietary manufacturer-applied hydrophobic coating. Testing done on replacement of the polypropylene fibers with shorter, stronger and stiffer basalt fibers showed that an optimal mix incorporated 0.5 vol% of both basalt and polypropylene fibers. The reinforcing effect of the wollastonite fibers was also determined by imaging a fracture surface of a concrete specimen using a scanning electron microscope (See Figure). This analysis showed the stable bond of the cement matrix and it was evident that the majority of the gain in strength and toughness was caused by the fibers bridging small cracks forming in the concrete during

loading. Due to the worsened interlayer bonding of the fibrous concrete it was determined that only the wollastonite microfibers would be used in the interior layers of concrete making up the canoe, while all three fiber types would be used in the outer layers. This distribution was chosen because the outer layers of concrete would be exposed to the majority of the strain during loading, while a strong compressive core helps the

RRReeessspppiiiccceee,,, AAAdddssspppiiiccceee,,, PPPrrrooossspppiiiccceee ––– LLLooooookkk tttooo ttthhheee PPPaaasssttt,,, ttthhheee PPPrrreeessseeennnttt,,, ttthhheee FFFuuutttuuurrreee 444

overall strength. The improved workability of the mix containing only wollastonite fibers allowed a slight raise in the aggregate volume fraction, thus reducing density and lowering the water to cement ratio to 0.475, which further improved strength. However, for the mix containing all types of fibrous reinforcement it was necessary to significantly improve the workability of the mix while maintaining adequate strength and low density. Compensating for the reduced workability caused by the inclusion of the basalt and polypropylene fibers required increasing the water to cementicious materials ratio to 0.5 while decreasing the volume fraction of aggregate in the mix. It was also found that inclusion of a high-range water reducing and air entraining admixtures at 1750 mL/m3 and 160 mL/m3, respectively, improved workability without decreasing strength. The addition of the water-reducer was in the center of the range defined by the manufacturer; however, the addition of air entrainer was based on the minimum manufacturer’s recommendation. Primary Reinforcement

Low-density composite materials were researched to serve as primary reinforcement in the canoe. Based on the cumulative research over the last couple years, 3 materials were considered: carbon fiber mesh, Kevlar fiber, and fiberglass mesh. Experience from previous year’s teams, coupled with brief initial testing this year led to the conclusion that Kevlar and carbon fiber were not cost justified for the minimal increase of strength. The testing variables included type of fiberglass reinforcement and number of reinforcing layers. The meshes were cast into 3 x 20 x 3/8 inch thick prisms, and left curing for 28 days at 90% humidity. They were then tested for flexural strength using a three-point bend test. The relative strength versus layer number is provided in the figure below.

Tests were conducted on one, two, and three reinforcing layers between two, three, and four concrete layers, respectively. The results for a single reinforcement layer conclusively showed that a single layer provided very little additional

flexural support as the concrete delaminated under low applied loads. Two and three layer reinforcement composites were stronger than single layer or pure concrete beams, as expected. It was determined that the three-layer composite

had an optimal tradeoff between strength and net weight, and further testing differentiated between the two separate fiberglass reinforcement types. The final reinforcement was selected to be three layers of 15 oz/yd2 fiberglass used between four layers of concrete. The reinforcing mesh was laid in an overlapping fashion such that a complete sheet overlapped the joint between sheets on the previous reinforcement layer on the canoe. The two inner layers consisted of three separate pieces of mesh, with an overlap of 4 inches between successive layers, and the outer layer consisted of four separate pieces of mesh, with the same overlap.

Number of Reinforcing Layers vs. Flexural Strength

22.5

33.5

44.5

55.5

0 1 2 3

Number of Reinforcing Layers

Stre

ngth

(MPa

)

OUTER MIX PROPERTIES Density 1010 kg/m3

Compressive Strength (28d.) 17.6 MPa Modulus of Rupture (28d.) 3 MPa

INNER MIX PROPERTIES Density 933 kg/m3

Compressive Strength (28d.) 16.4 MPa Modulus of Rupture (28d.) 2.7 MPa

COMPOSITE PROPERTIES Flexural Strength (28d.) 5 MPa Number of Reinforcing Layers 3

SSSiiiccc IIItttuuurrr aaaddd AAAssstttrrraaa ––– SSSuuuccchhh iiisss ttthhheee PPPaaattthhh tttooo ttthhheee SSStttaaarrrsss 555

SIC ITUR AD ASTRA - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTIONS - P M CS - P M CIICC IITTUURR AADD AASSTTRRAA RROOJJEECCTT AANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT AANNDD OONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN Project management

In early September, the executive committee determined the team’s goals for the year, as well as long term goals for coming years. Finance, paddling and hull design were identified as areas needing improvements. Organizational structure

The team is headed by two Co-Project Managers, four technical managers, six technical support staff and two fitness trainers. With two project managers, each aspect of the project was given more attention than it would have been with a single overseeing officer. As can be seen on the organization chart (pg 7), duties were split between the operations project manager, who looked after the technical aspects, and the logistics project manager, who looked after the logistical and financial aspects of the team. For similar reasons, it was decided to have a large executive body to ensure that all aspects of the project were covered by someone dedicated to that particular requirement.

As the project developed, these managers occasionally delegated major tasks to general team members. All other team members were encouraged to participate and ask questions about any aspect of the project that they were interested in; this allowed them to gain the understanding required to take on leadership roles in following years. Finance and Resource Allocation

A major concern at the beginning of the school year was the status of the finances, which had been divided between various accounts held by both the university and the team. It was necessary at this time to determine the resources already available and a method to keep the books balanced throughout the year.

The focus then shifted to the procurement of sponsorship in both monetary, material and service support. The team was able to get materials donated at or below cost and the CNC machining was done at no charge.

In terms of managing the resources available, a budget allocating the desired distribution of the monetary assets was prepared. This budget was based largely on the final budgets from previous years. Scheduling

The major milestone that needed to be considered while scheduling was the date of the commencement of the competition. Once this was known, the rest of the schedule was projected backwards. Another constraint was the day on which to cast the actual canoe. As casting can require up to 24 hours, it was decided that this day should take place during reading week so as not to interfere with classes. With the date for casting set, the final day for any testing was determined to be January 14th 2006, to allow for any final testing and to give ample time by which to acquire any necessary materials. The start date for the first session of the year was set as September 24th 2005. This allowed for two weeks to send out notices to past members and the recruitment of new members. Sessions were held for mix and composite on the majority of Saturdays during the school year up until December 3rd 2005.

TASK HOURS Hull Design 200 Concrete Design 850 Final Product Construction 1000 Business and Administration 350 Paddling 275

Safety and Quality Control

Because of the hazardous nature of the materials required for this project, extreme care was taken in ensuring that everyone was properly trained in the safety procedures for the lab and the equipment that we were using. This included the proper use of NIOSH certified N95 canister masks to prevent the inhalation of microbubbles and

SSSiiiccc IIItttuuurrr aaaddd AAAssstttrrraaa ––– SSSuuuccchhh iiisss ttthhheee PPPaaattthhh tttooo ttthhheee SSStttaaarrrsss 666

dust. Any required safety equipment was provided to team members by the team.

Quality control was maintained by following CSA and ASTM standards wherever applicable, including, but not limited to, test sample creation, curing, and testing methods. In cases where no standards apply, the team self-controlled its quality using standardized casting methods including using wires to insure a consistent layer thickness, and a modified slump cone was used to determine mix rheology based on the guidelines prepared by Ramachandran et al [3].

Casting the bow of the canoe

Mould Construction

Based on the canoe design data provided by the hull design manager, a male mould model was constructed using computer-modeling software. Once the mould design was completed, the next stage of work was outsourced to an outside company. This company took the mould information that had been decided upon and wrote CNC machine code for us. They in turn outsourced the cutting of the mould to another two companies. It was recommended for us to

purchase Type 3 foam for the mould, as it would be both cost effective and appropriate for cutting. The mould for the canoe was cut in six different pieces and the

cross-section was cut in two

different pieces to accommodate

the size of the CNC machines. Once the multiple mould pieces were received back from the companies, the team had to manually sand the foam to mould the gunnels. This was easily done with a knife, sandpaper and a template in the shape of the gunnel.

The mould was then assembled on the casting table, using spray glue to attach the different pieces and screws were drilled through the casting table into the mould to secure it in place and prevent shifting during casting.

Finally, any small holes or gaps in the assembled mould had to be filled in with dry-wall filler. The mould was lightly sanded and then coated with a layer of heat-shrink plastic to provide a smooth finish. Canoe Construction

Casting of the canoe began with the ribs. The outer mix was used, and casting alternated between a layer of concrete and a layer of reinforcement. Once the ribs had been completed the remainder of the mould was coated in an initial layer of the outer mix. Pieces of copper wire were used for thickness guides for the original layer of concrete; these were removed before the application of the first layer of reinforcement. This first layer of fiberglass was laid over the outer mix and then the inner mix was applied. Another two layers of mix and fiberglass were applied using the same method as before, with the final layer of concrete being the outer mix. A humidity tent was then constructed around the canoe and it was left to cure for 28 days.

Immediately after the 28 days were completed the humidity tent was dismantled and sanding commenced. After the canoe had been removed from the humidity tent for one week, the mould and the canoe were unscrewed from the table and the mould was removed. The sections of foam in the very front and rear of the canoe were left in as permanent floatation, and the rest of the foam was removed.

Final finishing of the canoe included numerous hours of sanding to ensure a smooth surface followed by proper staining and sealing of the canoe. The stain was applied according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, as was the sealer. Aesthetic designs were added to the canoe as the finishing touch, including the canoe and university’s name and the team’s logo.

EEE PPPllluuurrrbbbiiiuuusss UUUnnnuuummm ––– FFFrrrooommm MMMaaannnyyy,,, OOOnnneee 777

E PLURIBUS UNUM – ORGANIZATION CHARTE – O CE PPLLUURRIIBBUUSS UUNNUUMM – ORRGGAANNIIZZAATTIIOONN CHHAARRTT

Task NameProject Timeline

Hull Design

Initial Design

Analysis and Refinement

Mould Design

Final Design

Mix Design

Control Mix Design

Mix Analysis and Testing

Initial Reinforcement Design

Reinforcement Analysis and Testing

Final Mix Design Assessment

Final Mix Chosen

Construction

CNC Milling

Mold Assembly

Mould Finishing

Canoe Construction

Casting

Curing

Canoe Finishing

Transportation Box

Project Management

Establish Goals

Recruitment Events

Budget Formulation

Sponsorship Package Creation

Raise Funds

Tech Report

Writing

Revision

Final

Submission

Presentation

Theme Creation

Visuals

Design

Rehearsal

Paddling

Workouts

Paddling Practice

Official Team Chosen

Competition

Management Transition

14 21 28 04 11 18 25 02 09 16 23 30 06 13 20 27 04 11 18 25 01 08 15 22 29 05 12 19 26 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14Sep '05 Oct '05 Nov '05 Dec '05 Jan '06 Feb '06 Mar '06 Apr '06 May '06

Task Baseline Critical Path Baseline Milestone Actual Milestone Summary Project Summary

QUI NON EST HODIE CRAS MINUS APTUS ERIT - PROJECT SCHEDULE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CONCRETE CANOE TEAM

Qui Non Est Hodie Cras Minus Aptus Erit - He Who is Not Prepared Today Will be Less So Tomorrow 8

Project: UTCC Project ScheduleDate: Wed 29/03/06

12"

48"

84"

120" "

228

192"

156"0

"

63.6

"

91.6

""0.

0

165.

6"

179.

6"

239.

2

139.

6"

12.1

"

2 2

1

1

1' HAND CUT SECTIONS

(6 PIECES)

FOAM

FOAM 3' CNC MACHINED SECTIONS

WRAP

2

3 PLYWOOD

SHRINK

(2 PIECES)

4

11

1" THICK BASE

9

1 1 1

50 SQ FT TO PREVENT CONCRETEADHESION TO FOAM, PROVIDESMOOTH INTERIOR FINISH

4

AA

SECTION A-A SCALE 1 : 25

"21.7

" 1

.5

1"

23.4"

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CONCRETE CANOE TEAM .

3

21'

'3

3.0" (5)

NOTES:

ISOMETRIC VIEW

DESCRIPTIONNO.

MAR 26, 2006

ALL TOLERANCES

SCALE 1:25

REV: 1

0.1" UNLESS

CANOE MOULD

DRAWN BY: D. ZAIDE

ITEM

OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTOCONCRETE CANOE TEAM

WEIGHT: 62 lbs

0.2"

0.1"

50"70"

12"

13"

12"

50"70"

1.4"

4.0"

"7.65.8"

9.3"10.8"11.8"

0" 64"

92"

140"

166"

180"

"12.2

0.0"

2.9"

240"

13.0

"

0.8"

0.4"

WOLLASTONITE, BASALT AND

(2 LAYERS IN CANOE,ALL RIBS)

MIXINTERIOR

10

CANOE AND 3 IN EACH RIB)AR-GLASS SCRIM(3 LAYERS IN

EMENT

1

2

3 REINFORC-

USED (2 LAYERS IN CANOE)WOLLASTONITE MICROFIBERS

FIBREGLASS

POLYPROPYLENE FIBERS USED MIXEXTERIOR

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CONCRETE CANOE TEAM .

3

2

SCALE 1 : 5

11

2

DETAIL A

GUNNEL1.

5"1.0"

RIB3

SCALE 1 : 33

DETAIL B

2

10"

9"

A

A NOTES:

ISOMETRIC VIEW

DESCRIPTIONNO.

MAR 26, 2006SCALE 1:25

ALL TOLERANCES OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

0.1" UNLESS

CANOE MODEL

DRAWN BY: D. ZAIDE

ITEM

REV: 1

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTOCONCRETE CANOE TEAM

WEIGHT: 188 lbs

ALL MEASUREMENTS 1' HORIZONTALLYAPART

3.00" (5)

A

SCALE 1 : 15SECTION A-A

B

24.5"

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 AAA---111

AP ENDICESAAPPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS APPENDIX A – REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHYAAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA––RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS AANNDD BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHYY REFERENCES: 1. American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). “Standard Specification for Concrete

Aggregates”. ASTM International Standard C 33. West Conshohocken, PA. 2. Low, N. and Beaudoin, J. J. (1993) “Flexural Strength and Microstructure of Cement Binders

Reinforced with Wollastonite Micro-Fibers”. Cement and Concrete Research. 23,905-916. 3. 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 BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team (2005). “Classified Technical Report”. 2. University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team (2004). “Nikko Technical Report”. 3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit

Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete”. ASTM International Standard C 138. West Conshohocken, PA.

4. Chandra, S. and Berntsson, L. (2002). “Lightweight Aggregate Concrete”, William Andrew

Publishing.

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 BBB---111

APPENDIX B – MIXTURE PROPORTIONSAAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB––MMIIXXTTUURREE PPRROOPPOORRTTIIOONNSS

Interior Mixture – 3L Batch

Proportions as Designed*

Batched Proportions**

Yielded Proportions

Cementitious Materials Specific Gravity

*

Amount (kg/m3)

Volume (m3)

Amount (g)

Volume (L)

Amount (kg/m3)

Volume (m3)

1. Portland Cement Type 1 3.15 315.66 0.1002 947 0.3006 312.44 0.09922. Fly ash Type F 2.54 105.22 0.0414 316 0.1244 104.15 0.0410

Total of All Cementitious Materials 420.88 0.1416 1263 0.4250 416.58 0.1402Fibers

1. Polypropylene 0.91 0.00 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.00 0.00002. Basalt 2.66 0.00 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.00 0.00003. Wollastonite 2.90 46.40 0.0160 139 0.0479 45.93 0.0158

Total of All Fibers 46.40 0.0160 139 0.0479 45.93 0.0158Aggregates†

1. Poraver 1-2mm 0.41 65.94 0.1608 188 0.4821 65.27 0.1592Water Absorption: 2 vol%

2. Poraver 0.5-1mm 0.49 57.54 0.1174 166 0.3532 56.95 0.1162Water Absorption: 2 vol%

3. Poraver 0.25-0.5mm 0.62 64.81 0.1045 188 0.3133 64.15 0.1035Water Absorption: 2 vol%

4. Cenospheres 0.91 50.68 0.0557 151 0.1678 50.16 0.0551Water Absorption: 1 wt%

5. S15 Microspheres 0.16 20.07 0.1254 60 0.3750 19.87 0.1242Water Absorption: 0%

Total of All Aggregates 259.04 0.5639 753 1.6914 256.40 0.5582Water

Batched Water 1.00 91.19 0.0912 280 0.2800 90.26 0.0903Total Free Water From all Aggregates 1.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.00 0.0000Total Water from all Admixtures 1.00 98.21 0.0982 316 0.3160 97.21 0.0972

Total Water 189.40 0.1894 596 0.5960 187.47 0.1875

Admixtures % Solids

Amount (kg/m3)

Water in Admix. (L/m3)

Amount (g)

Water in Admix. (mL)

Amount (kg/m3)

Water in Admix. (L/m3)

1. Air Entrainer n/a 0.15 0.45 0.15 2. High Range Water Reducer n/a 1.60 4.80 1.58 3. Acrylic Latex Dispersion 30 wt% 140.29 98.21 421 295 138.86 97.21 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.750 0.750 0.750 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.450 0.450 0.450 Slump (mm) 160 160 160 Estimated Air Content, vol% 5.000 5.000 5.970 Density (Unit Weight), kg/m3 942.620 933.000 933.000 Gravimetric Air Content, vol% 5.970

Yield, m3 1.000 0.003 1.000 * Aggregate Density SSD ** As Provided w/ 0% Water † Batched Moisture Content: 0%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 BBB---222

Exterior Mixture – 3L Batch

Proportions as Designed*

Batched Proportions**

Yielded Proportions*

Cementitious Materials Specific Gravity*

Amount (kg/m3)

Volume (m3)

Amount (g)

Volume (L)

Amount (kg/m3)

Volume (m3)

1. Portland Cement Type 1 3.15 314.82 0.0999 944 0.2997 323.96 0.10282. Fly ash Type F 2.54 104.95 0.0413 316 0.1244 108.00 0.0425

Total of All Cementitious Materials 419.77 0.1413 1260 0.4241 431.96 0.1454Fibers

1. Polypropylene 0.91 4.55 0.0050 14 0.0154 4.68 0.00512. Basalt 2.66 13.30 0.0050 40 0.0150 13.69 0.00513. Wollastonite 2.90 46.40 0.0160 139 0.0479 47.75 0.0165

Total of All Fibers 64.25 0.0260 193 0.0784 66.12 0.0268Aggregates†

1. Poraver 1-2mm 0.41 62.43 0.1523 178 0.4564 64.24 0.1567Water Absorption: 2 vol%

2. Poraver 0.5-1mm 0.49 54.48 0.1112 157 0.3340 56.06 0.1144Water Absorption: 2 vol%

3. Poraver 0.25-0.5mm 0.62 61.37 0.0990 178 0.2967 63.15 0.1019Water Absorption: 2 vol%

4. Cenospheres 0.91 47.98 0.0527 143 0.1589 49.37 0.0543Water Absorption: 1 wt%

5. S15 Microspheres 0.16 19.00 0.1188 57 0.3563 19.55 0.1222Water Absorption: 0%

Total of All Aggregates 245.26 0.5339 713 1.6023 252.38 0.5494Water

Batched Water 1.00 111.93 0.1119 359 0.3590 115.18 0.1152Total Free Water From all Aggregates 1.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.00 0.0000Total Water from all Admixtures 1.00 97.94 0.0979 294 0.2940 100.78 0.1008

Total Water 209.87 0.2099 653 0.6530 215.96 0.2160

Admixtures % Solids

Amount (kg/m3)

Water in Admix. (L/m3)

Amount (g)

Water in Admix. (mL)

Amount (kg/m3)

Water in Admix. (L/m3)

1. Air Entrainer n/a 0.15 0.45 0.15 2. High Range Water Reducer n/a 1.60 5.00 1.65 3. Acrylic Latex Dispersion 30 wt% 140.29 98.21 420 294 144.36 101.06 Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.750 0.750 0.750 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.500 0.500 0.500 Slump (mm) 10 10 10 Estimated Air Content, vol% 5.000 5.000 2.241 Density (Unit Weight), kg/m3 981.500 1010.000 1010.00 Gravimetric Air Content, vol% 2.241

Yield, m3 1.000 0.003 1.000 * Aggregate Density SSD ** As Provided w/ 0% Water † Batched Moisture Content: 0%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---111

APPENDIX C – GRADATION CURVES AND TABLESA C – G C TAPPPPEENNDDIIXX C – GRRAADDAATTIIOONN CUURRVVEESS AANNDD TAABBLLEESS

Composite Aggregate Blend Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

Composite Aggregate BlendASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: Composite Aggregate Blend Sample Weight (g): 500 Specific Gravity: 0.44 Fineness Modulus: 2.17

Specific Gravity

Mass Fraction (%) Aggregate

Poraver 1-2mm 0.39 25.00% Poraver 0.5-1mm 0.47 22.00% Poraver 0.25-0.5mm 0.60 25.00% Cenospheres 0.90 20.00% S15 Microspheres 0.16 8.00%

Sieve Diameter (mm) Percent Finer (%) C33 Lower Limit (%) C33 Upper Limit (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% No. 4 4.75 100.00% 95.00% 100.00% No. 8 2.36 100.00% 80.00% 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 84.70% 50.00% 85.00% No. 30 0.6 59.46% 25.00% 60.00% No. 50 0.3 28.98% 5.00% 30.00% No. 100 0.15 9.97% 0.00% 10.00%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---222

Poraver 1-2mm Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

Poraver 1-2mmASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: Poraver 1-2mm Sample Weight (g): 47.67 Specific Gravity: 0.39 Fineness Modulus: 3.61

Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 0 0 100.00% No. 4 4.75 0 0 100.00% No. 8 2.36 0 0 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 29.17 29.17 38.81% No. 30 0.6 18.33 47.5 0.36% No. 50 0.3 0.17 47.67 0.00%

No. 100 0.15 0 47.67 0.00%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---333

Poraver 0.5-1mm Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

Poraver 0.5-1mmASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: Poraver 0.5-1mm Sample Weight (g): 52.41 Specific Gravity: 0.47 Fineness Modulus: 2.69

Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 0 0 100.00% No. 4 4.75 0 0 100.00% No. 8 2.36 0 0 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 0 0 100.00% No. 30 0.6 37.23 37.23 28.96% No. 50 0.3 14.54 51.77 1.22%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---444

Poraver 0.25-0.5mm Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

Poraver 0.25-0.5mmASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: Poraver 0.25-0.5mm Sample Weight (g): 66.74 Specific Gravity: 0.60 Fineness Modulus: 1.95

Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 0 0 100.00% No. 4 4.75 0 0 100.00% No. 8 2.36 0 0 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 0 0 100.00% No. 30 0.6 0 0 100.00% No. 50 0.3 63.73 63.73 4.51%

No. 100 0.15 2.57 66.3 0.66%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---555

Cenosphere Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

CenospheresASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: Cenospheres Sample Weight (g): 72.94 Specific Gravity: 0.90 Fineness Modulus: 0.94

Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 0 0 100.00% No. 4 4.75 0 0 100.00% No. 8 2.36 0 0 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 0 0 100.00% No. 30 0.6 0 0 100.00% No. 50 0.3 1.51 1.51 97.93%

No. 100 0.15 65.6 67.11 7.99%

UUUTTTCCCCCC 222000000555---222000000666 CCC---666

S15 Microsphere Gradation

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Diameter (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

By

Wei

ght (

%)

S15 MicrospheresASTM C33 Limits

Concrete Aggregate: S15 Microspheres Sample Weight (g): 18.62 Specific Gravity: 0.16 Fineness Modulus: 0.00

Cumulative Weight Retained (g) Sieve Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g) Percent Finer (%)

3/8 inch 9.5 0 0 100.00% No. 4 4.75 0 0 100.00% No. 8 2.36 0 0 100.00%

No. 16 1.18 0 0 100.00% No. 30 0.6 0 0 100.00% No. 50 0.3 0 0 100.00%

No. 100 0.15 0 0 100.00%