THE ONE CANOE - technical report

University of Toronto Presents

The One Canoe

2008

2009CO

NCRET

ECA

NOE

i

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

Founded in 1827, the University of Toronto, located in the heart of downtown Toronto, has grown into Canada’s leading research uni-versity. With over 4,300 undergraduate engineers enrolled in more than 9 engineering disciplines, and an overall enrollment of over 65,000 students, the University of Toronto is also the largest univer-sity in Canada. Our team mirrors this diversity by accepting mem-bers from all disciplines, as well as other faculties to comprise our dedicated membership of over 30 students.

This year will mark the 35th anniversary of the American National Concrete Canoe Competition and the 15th year of the University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team’s participation in the Canadian re-gional contest (CNCCC). Prior to BLUENOSE’s 4th place finish in Halifax last year, the team has placed 5th, 6th and 5th in the past three years and better before that.

With a thorough review of our past performances and a stronger fo-cus on sustainability, materials science and aesthetic design, we look to revive our winning tradition with this year’s innovative, applica-tion-specific, and low density mix design. The aesthetic design of our canoe incorporates acid stain, integrally coloured concrete, and in-mold artistic overlay. A nature inspired design with a combination of white and green concrete was chosen to reflect this year’s focus on the environment and sustainability.

Excelling in a innovative research-based mix design and in rigor-ous analysis using hydrostatics and FEA software, the University of Toronto presents THE ONE CANOE, the 2009 University of Toronto Concrete Canoe.

executive summary

table of contentsExecutive summary ..................................................................................................................................... iAnalysis........................................................................................................................................................1Development And Testing ............................................................................................................................2Project management and Construction ........................................................................................................5Innovation And sustainability ......................................................................................................................7Organization Chart .......................................................................................................................................8Project schedule ...........................................................................................................................................9mold model ...............................................................................................................................................10Canoe model ..............................................................................................................................................11Appendices

A – references ...................................................................................................................................A1b – mixture Proportions ....................................................................................................................b1C – gradation Curves and Tables ......................................................................................................C1

The One Canoe

Length 6.096 m Maximum Width 79.2 cm Maximum Depth 35.56 cm Mass 70 kg Nominal Hull Thickness 13 mm

Material Properties

Composite Flexural Strength 10.2 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 1.8 GPa Layers of Carbon Fiber 2Unit Weight 770 kg/m3

Non-Fiber (Core) Compressive Strength 10.1 MPa Flexural Strength 3.4 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 1.3 GPa Unit Weight 586 kg/m3

Fiber (Outside) Compressive Strength 10.8 MPa Flexural Strength 4.8 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 1.8 GPa Unit Weight 804 kg/m3

Pigment (Inside)Compressive Strength 10.6 MPa Flexural Strength 4.9 MPa Modulus of Elasticity 1.8 GPa Unit Weight 760 kg/m3

1

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

Finite Element Analysis

Accurate boundary conditions are essential for a useful finite element analysis (FEA). The results of an analysis are typically presented with a high degree of precision, and are meaningless if the basic assumptions about restraint behaviour are flawed. One popular means of analysis is to re-strain the ends of the canoe and apply forces to its body. However, this assumes that the endpoint positions remain fixed relative to one another, which is not necessarily the case. Rather, the proper boundary conditions should contain no such restraints at all.

A floating canoe is in a state of equilibrium; the buoyant force of the water must perfect-ly counteract the gravity load of the canoe and its paddlers. In reality, readjustment of this equilibrium occurs by the water-line rising or falling as paddlers enter and exit the canoe. Thus, to mimic the actual behaviour of a canoe in water, it is necessary to know the equilibrium position of the water line, or draft. This information was obtained using in-house software for hydrostatic calculations for all loading cases. Given a waterline, the forces ap-plied to the hull consist of a pres-sure gradient below the waterline, gravity acting on the canoe itself, and paddler loads. These forces will be in equilibrium.

Modelling

The program COSMOSWorks (Solid-Works Corp. Concord, MA) was used to perform the FEA. The canoe hull was mod-eled using shell elements of two different thicknesses, rep-resenting the main body and the ribs/gunwales. The use of shell elements rather than solid elements greatly in-

creased computational efficiency and the accuracy to which the analysis could be conducted. Pad-dler loads were modeled as circu-lar distributed loads. Since nu-merical rounding errors cause the forces to be slightly out of equi-librium, inertial relief was used to stabilize the model for analysis. Since the loads in question are rel-atively small a linear analysis was conducted. It was assumed that the reinforcement in the concrete could be taken to be smeared throughout the shell, thus treating it as a homo-geneous spherically isotropic linear elastic material. Since accurate stiff-

ness values for the concrete were not available for the analysis, the results

obtained are accurate only with respect to stresses incurred, not displacements.

Overall displacements are expected to be small, so this is not a large concern.

Results

Analysis was performed for each of the load cases: 2, 3, and 4 paddlers, and other special

considerations, including cases where a paddler does not kneel on the ribs. The failure criterion

for the concrete is expected to be the maximum principle tensile stress that exceeds the cracking

stress of the concrete (10.2 MPa for the compos-ite). According to the analyses, the maximum ten-sile stress incurred is 2.82 MPa in the 3-person load case given kneeling off the ribs. This corresponds to a minimum factor of safety of 3.6. If four paddlers kneel on the ribs, the maximum stress is 1.71 MPa (Figure 1), for a factor of safety of 6.0. In all cases, the stresses are highly localized under the paddlers’ knees. These stresses can be mitigated by having the paddlers kneel on blocks to better distribute their weight.

analysis

Figure 1: Fo u r- p a d-

dler loading case — Maxi-

mum principal stress on underside.

2

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

development and testingOverview

This year the goals of the mix development team were to eliminate delamination in the composite which occured in the previous year, to adjust the mix design to be compliant with the new rules and to continue with our tradition of materials science innovation, while considering the environmental impact of the materials used. The baseline mix used was from last year’s canoe, BLUENOSE, and had a mean composite flexural strength of 9.1 MPa. This mix was improved with the introduction of expanded polymer (Expancel) microspheres to in-crease mix workability and decrease mix density, with the addition of aqueous poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) to decrease density, and with the selection of an optimized and sustainable combination of four pozzolanic materials to replace half of the Portland cement. The result is a low-density, high strength, application-specific concrete composite that is the culmination of years of research at U of T.

Testing

During each phase of the research and develop-ment, trial mixes were cast in 5.1 x 5.1 x 30.5 cm prisms or 0.5 x 6 x 40 cm thin beams and cured for 28 days at 90% relative humidity. Once cured the beams were tested in a three point bend to determine flexural strength and estimate the flexural stiffness based on ASTM C293 [1] and C947 – 03 [2] for the prisms and thin beams, respectively. Four beams were tested for each trial mix. Following the selec-tion of the final mixes, the compressive strength of the concrete was measured by testing 52mm cubes in compression as per ASTM C109 [3]. Displace-ment rate for all tests was at 1mm/min. Air content for each mix was measured gravimetrically.

Concrete mix development and testing occurred from September to December. Since there is lim-ited time to cast and test beams, mix design was adjusted as results were obtained in order to pre-vent the potential for conflicting factors decreasing the viability of the mix. For instance, the first few weeks were spent testing various binder composi-tions. Once the optimal binder composition was

identified, test mixes including the controls were adjusted to include this new composition. New in-gredients that were tested for the mix included Ex-pancel microspheres, poly(vinyl alcohol) of various molecular weights, Ipanex (colloidal calcium-sil-icate-hydrate), Kalmatron, and various green pig-ments. Unreinforced, fibre-reinforced and compos-ite beams were all tested.

Binder Composition

The new rules for this year required that a minimum of 50% of the Portland cement be replaced by non-hydraulic binders, a potentially difficult technical challenge. In previous years the team has tested fly ash (type C and F), blast furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin, and colloidal nanosilica as replace-ments for Portland cement. Results from these tests were kept in mind during planning. Addition-ally, this year the team obtained a sample of VCAS (amorphous calcium aluminosilicate) from Vitro Minerals to test. Since 50% is higher than the maxi-mum recommended replacement for most of these binders, the mix team decided to test combinations that in total replaced half of the cement. Figure 2 shows the flexural strengths for selected text mixes. The best binder composition tested was determined to be: 50% Portland white cement; 17% type C fly ash; 16% metakaolin, 16% VCAS, and 1% colloidal nanosilica. This combination demonstrated slightly lower workability than many of the other mixes, but

Figure 2: Flexural Strength (MPa) of various binder compositions tested : Met. = Metakaolin; FC = Fly-ash Type C. All non-control mixes contain 50% white Portland cement and 1% colloidal nanosilica.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Control 49% VCAS

39% VCAS

10% Met.

24.5% Met.

24.5% VCAS

49% FC 17% FC 16% VCAS

16% Met.

24.5% FC 24.5% VCAS

39% FC 10% VCAS

3

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

had the highest flexural strength overall. The binder volume ratio in the final mix was increased by a minimum of 2% to compensate for the decrease in workability and to increase the mix strength.

Aggregate Selection

This year’s aggregate selection contained 2% by mass Expancel microspheres. This change de-creased the density of the mix and increased its workability without significantly compromising base mix strength, and perhaps even improving composite strength from last year. This is, as far as the team knows, the first incidence of Expancel used in a concrete application.

The aggregate selection for BLUENOSE used a combination of 95% by mass foamed glass spheres (0.25-0.5mm) and 5% by mass glass microspheres. This decrease in aggregate size following the re-moval of ASTM gradation limitations allowed an increase in mix strength and thinner layers. Howev-er, the large volume fraction of similar-sized glass spheres prevented adequate packing, leading to lower workability. This perhaps caused the delami-nation between layers observed in BLUENOSE. Since the mass fraction of fine aggregates is limited to 5%, one way to improve sphere packing in the mix would be to add a low mass percentage of ex-tremely low density aggregate.

Expancel microspheres, seen with glass micro-spheres on the fracture surface in Figure 3, are

formed from the expansion of gas in a thermoplastic shell, and have a density that can be 40 times lighter than water. The addition of only 2% by mass of Ex-pancel microspheres increased the volume fraction of fine aggregate from 19% to 38%, decreasing the density of the mix by around 20%, while only de-creasing the strength of the base mix by 10-20%. The increase in volume fraction allowed a signifi-cant increase in mix packing and workability. Ex-pancel cast concrete mixes were not fluid but mold-able like clay, allowing simple casting on the sides of the canoe, hence increasing the specificity of the mix design to the application. Finally, THE ONE CANOE shows no layer delamination and sits at a lean 70 kg with a composite density less than 80% that of water.

Polymer Modification

Last year it was found that the incorporation of 35% by weight of cementicious materials of acrylic la-tex improved flexural strength, decreased density and increased workability. This year the addition of 1.4% of cement mass of aqueous poly(vinyl al-cohol) (PVA) decreased the density of the mix by approximately 15% without affecting the flexural strength.

PVA-modified concrete has at times been of great interest, particularly with the development of ex-tremely high flexural strength macro-defect free cements developed in the 1980s by Birchall et al [4]. Although such materials degrade in water, and thus would not be suitable for concrete canoe appli-cations, concretes modified with smaller quantities (1-3% of cement mass) of PVA have been shown to have some positive effect on concrete properties [5-7]. Kim and Robertson suggested that PVA de-creases the size of the porous transition zone be-tween the cement and the aggregate and suppresses the nucleation of calcium hydroxide on the surface of the aggregate [5]. The strength increase associ-ated with these chemical changes may be mitigated by an overall increase in porosity [6], although one study shows porosity decreases [7]. Testing using Celvol 805 PVA showed no change in mix strength with a decrease in density of approximately 15%, corroborating the data published by Kim and Rob-ertson.

Figure 3: SEM micrograph of fracture surface show-ing glass and Expancel microspheres

4

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

Secondary Reinforcement

Last year’s mix design incorporated ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers (UHMWPE, Dyneema). Research conducted two years ago showed that out of eight high stiffness and high strength fibers tested, Dyneema provided the great-est improvement in flexural strength (20%), while also being the lowest density (1 g/mL). Workability of the mix containing the Dyneema fiber was also substantially better than the other fibers. Based on the research from previous years, 6mm long fibers were added at 1 vol% to the mix. This combination was found to provide the optimal compromise be-tween strength and workability.

The mixes which do not contain short fibers exhibit improved workability and bonding characteristics along with reduced density. Therefore, to ensure satisfactory inter-layer bonding at minimum mass, short fiber reinforcement was only used in the out-er layers of the hull where stresses are highest. To compensate for the reduced workability caused by the inclusion of Dyneema fibers, we decreased the volume fraction of aggregate in the mix while in-creasing the binder content.

Primary Reinforcement

Two years ago we were able to obtain a carbon/S2-glass fiber hybrid mesh (22% open area). Although previous tests showed the optimal composite strength given use of materials with three layers of carbon fiber, this year the number of layers was re-duced to two in an effort to conserve the mesh. De-spite a significant loss in flexural strength (around 35%), the reduced-layer composite was still slight-ly stronger than the composite from BLUENOSE. It also allowed a potential decrease in hull thickness and reduced reliance on carbon fiber, increasing the overall sustainability of the canoe by using less ma-terial.

The carbon fiber mesh is extremely important to the overall structural integrity of the composite. Be-sides providing a flexural strength increase of up to 400%, the carbon fiber mesh increases the amount of energy absorbed by beams by a couple orders of magnitude. As shown in Figure 4, the strength of the composite increases even after first cracking

and demonstrates pseudo-strain hardening behav-iour [8, 9]. Even a thin, broken composite beam takes considerable effort to break using human strength. This underlies the extreme importance of interlayer bonding of the concrete mix to prevent layer delamination and preserve composite integ-rity. The introduction of Expancel microspheres, as discussed earlier in this section, played an impor-tant role in preventing delamination in THE ONE CANOE.

Conclusion

The mix development team at the University of To-ronto has produced a strong, lightweight composite with specificity to the concrete canoe application and potentially other applications. Since many changes were made to the mix this year, many factors were left untested, and with additional research the mix design could be optimized even further. The cur-rent mix contains a large frequency of voids, many of which could be eliminated with a decreased wa-ter content. A smoother, stronger, denser composite with an engineered density of just below that of wa-ter would be ideal for a future University of Toronto concrete canoe.

CompositeCoreMix

FiberMix

PigmentMix

flex (MPa) 10.2 3.4 4.8 4.9comp (MPa) - 10.1 10.8 10.6

E (GPa) 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.8(kg/m3) 770 586 804 760

Table 1: Summary of Mix Properties.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Stre

ss (

MPa

)

Strain (%)

Figure 4: Sample stress-strain curve of final compos-ite illustrating its high ductility and resilience.

5

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

project management and constructionProject Management

In early September the team held an organizational meeting in order to determine goals and priorities for the year. In order to improve our performance at the competition, we decided to increase time spent towards the aesthetic design and final presentation of the canoe. In order to facilitate this increase the team decided to prioritize recruitment and team building activities to secure committed workers. With a newly received student levy fund, the team was able to commit more money to new activities and materials and achieved these goals.

Organizational Structure

The team is headed by two project managers, three technical managers, five technical support staff and two fitness trainers. The three major leader-ship roles for the team - team development, techni-cal development, and logistics – were given to two qualified students. This allowed leadership duties to be split according to each student’s strengths and interests, while allowing a balance and check in the hierarchal structure. A large executive body was es-tablished in order to lighten the workload of each student, and to target the executive role to his or her interests. As the project developed, the execu-tive body delegated tasks to general team members. This allowed for the passage of knowledge as well as increasing each member’s sense of involvement in the project. All team members were trained in basic techniques, educated with basic knowledge, and informed of the ongoing progress of the proj-ect. This will allow these new members to have an increased role in future projects.

Finance and Resource Allocation

Due to an exceptional sponsorship effort, an in-crease in private donations, and the procurement of a student levy fund from the faculty, the U of T Concrete Canoe Team was able to increase its scope of activities according to the goals set out at the be-ginning of the year. Major new costs included ad-vertisement and materials and tools for construction projects meant to increase team spirit. Consistent

large costs remaining from past projects included the cost of foam and CNC milled mould, accom-modation and transportation for the competition, and construction costs associated with building and transporting the canoe. As in previous years, most materials used in the canoe were donated due to the efforts of past and current technical project manag-ers.

Scheduling

The major milestone that needed to be considered while scheduling was the date of the commence-ment 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 canoe. An early casting date, this year January 18th, allowed more time for finishing. This meant the last day for casting test beams should be De-cember 15th. Since students tend to join teams near the beginning of the semester, recruitment activities were scheduled for all of September. Hence con-crete mix and composite testing and team building activities were scheduled for October through De-cember, primarily on Saturdays. Hull analysis was done by a seperate team in parallel to mix design. Mould machining and construction was scheduled for early January before casting day, and involved all team members.

Mold Construction

Based on the canoe design data provided by the competition, a male mould model was constructed using computer-modeling software. Once the mould design was completed, the CNC machine code was commissioned to our milling contact.

The mould for the canoe was made from high den-

Task Hours

Hull Design 300Concrete Design 850Final Product Construction 1800Business and Administration 450Paddling 500

Table 2: Breakdown of Task Hours

6

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

sity white polystyrene foam and pink polystyrene foam insulation sheets. The white foam was milled into five main sections and several gunwale/base pieces for the part of the canoe with rocker. The pink foam was milled to form the pieces that form the ribs and gunwales for where the canoe is flat, and the base pieces. The milled sections were manually sanded smooth in order to remove the excess foam left from machining. After sanding, large sections were covered with shrink wrap and heated while small pieces were covered with tape. This produced a smooth inner surface finish on demoulding. Aes-thetic curves connecting the ribs and gunwales were carved into the canoe and covered with tape.

The canoe mould was assembled in stages. The thin base pieces were assembled first and fastened to the table, and smaller flat pieces were placed on top. This formed the half of the canoe that does not have rocker. The pieces that formed both the base and the gunwale for the second half of the canoe slowly increased in depth towards the bow of the canoe forming the rocker. Atop of these pieces the main canoe sections were placed, and the difference in thickness formed the template for the gunwale. In between each piece of the main sections the smaller rib pieces were placed, forming a template for the ribs. Gaps at the intersections of different pieces of the mould were filled using drywall filler and sili-cone caulking.

Canoe Construction

The casting of the canoe began with the ribs and gunwales using the outer fiber mix. The aesthetic curves were also filled at the same time. As can be seen in Figure 4, once this was finished the fibrous

pigment mix was used to create a thin layer extend-ing over the whole mould without going closer than one inch from the base. This was to prevent a green line from appearing on the top of the gunwale in the completed canoe. A sheet of carbon fiber mesh was laid over this layer, and a non-fibrous inner mix was worked in between the mesh in order to facilitate bonding between layers. This process was repeated using only non-fibrous mix for one more layer of carbon fiber. This was coated with fibrous mix for strength and finally a non-fibrous mix for sanding. Each layer of concrete was approximately 2.5 mm thick with extreme care being taken to produce ho-mogenous layers of minimum thickness. This pro-duced a smooth, uniformly thick, and lightweight canoe.

A humidity tent was then constructed around the ca-noe and it was left to cure for 28 days. After 7 addi-tional days for the latex films to harden, the mould and the canoe were unfastened from the table and the mould was removed. Final finishing of the ca-noe included numerous hours of sanding and pol-ishing to obtain a smooth and even surface. After polishing the canoe was decorated with acid stain, sealed with an acrylic sealer, and labeled with the university’s name and the name of the canoe.

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 microspheres and 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, includ-ing, 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 a modified miniaturized slump cone to determine mix rheology based on the guidelines prepared by Ra-machandran et al [10].

Figure 4: Casting of the bow of the canoe.

7

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

Innovativation

The high quality concrete mix design used in THE ONE CANOE has been produced as a result of the hard work and innovation of many students at the University of Toronto. The concrete demonstrates, to our knowledge, the first recorded use of Expan-cel microspheres in a concrete application - with outstanding results - among other achievements.

As discussed in-depth in the mix and develop-ment section, Expancel microspheres improved the workability of the wet concrete mix and its ability to penetrate layers of carbon fiber in the compos-ite, increasing overall strength. Mixes that included Expancel were both simpler to cast on vertical sur-faces and considerably easier to sand once cured compared to other mixes used previously, increas-ing the specificity of the concrete to the application. Finally, Expancel microspheres also had a profound effect on the density of the concrete. Viable con-crete mixes were produced this year with densities below 500 grams per liter without compromising composite strength. Surface imaging of the fracture site using a scanning electron microscope showed this is due to an ultra-porous structure that can be seen in Figure 5. There is much more research that can be done using Expancel in concrete, and the University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team hopes to lead the way in such innovative development.

Sustainability

The University of Toronto Concrete Canoe Team recognized that increasing product sustainability has become an important part of engineering de-sign. The team has tried to decrease its environ-mental impact by using primarily recycled aggre-gate, by replacing a large portion of the Portland cement with the more sustainable VCAS and fly ash, by using high reflectivity white concrete, and by decreasing the density and weight of the canoe.

The foamed glass spheres that compose 95% by mass of the aggregate in the mix are made from re-cycled glass in Ontario [11]. Hence using these glass spheres means a large portion of the material in the concrete comes from glass that otherwise would have been disposed of. Similarly, both fly ash and VCAS, which compose 33% of the mass of binder, are produced as by-products of industrial processes and might be wasted if not used in concrete applica-tions. In addition, the use of VCAS and fly ash on a large scale reduces the amount of cement that needs to be manufactured.

White concretes have been shown to increase ma-terial reflectivity [12]. In building applications, the use of higher reflectivity concrete decreases the lo-calized heat island effect, potentially saving energy costs from air conditioning and preventing ground-level smog [12]. The University of Toronto has spent three years developing white concrete that could potentially be used in non-structural building applications, and it is used in THE ONE CANOE.

The University of Toronto has produced the light-est canoe at the competition for the past two years, with last year’s BLUENOSE weighing only 48 kg. Although this year’s canoe weighs an estimated 70 kg, it is still expected to be lighter than most if not all other teams. Lighter canoes both conserve mate-rials and require less energy to transport. In general it is a sustainable engineering practice to decrease weight for these reasons, and the University of To-ronto takes this consideration to heart.

innovation and sustainability

Figure 5: SEM micrograph of fracture surface showing the ultra-high porosity of the concrete

Owen MelvilleTechnical Project Manager

Responsible for the oversight of all tasks directly related to devel-

opment of the canoe

Concrete DesignDesign and testing of

concrete, reinforcement, and casting techniques

ConstructionDesign and construction of table, display, and box

for canoe

Hull AnalysisStructural analysis of hull design and mould

construction

Michael FerriDesign Manager

Jonathan HoDesign Support

Lian NiMix and Composite

Design Manager

Sanae RosenCasting Manager

Chen ChenAesthetic Design

Tim van PuttenConstruction Manager

Mike LacourtConstruction Support

Owen MelvilleTeam Captain

Responsible for the oversight of publications, recruitment efforts

and athletic training

PaddlingStrength and endur-

ance of paddling team members

PublicationsDesign and composition of technical report and

recruitment media

Group MeetingsAdministration and op-

eration of team meetings

Finances & Sponsorship Procurement of univer-

sity, industry, and private sponsorhsip

Eva ChauArtistic Design

Jonathan HoGraphics Design

Jonathan HoFood CoordinatorEntire Team

Renzo BassetTechnical and Lab

Advisor

Prof. Kim PressnailFaculty Advisor

and Liason

Glenn HibbardFaculty Advisor

Lorine JungFinancial Account

Support

8

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

organization chart

David RuggieroDesign Support

Jeffrey CastrucciLogistics Project Manager

Responsible for the oversight and coordination of logistical and

financial operations

Jenn EversleyFitness Trainer

Eric BradshawFitness Trainer

LEGEND

Student Staff

9

Task Name

Project TimelineProject Management

Establish GoalsRecruitment EventsBudget FormulationSponsorship Package CreationRaise Funds

Hull AnalysisModeling and AnalysisMould Design and Modeling

Mix DesignControl Mix DesignResearch and Material GatheringBeam CastingBinder Analysis and TestingAdmixture and Pigment Analysis and TestingComposite Mix Analysis and TestingFinal Mix Design AssessmentFinal Mix Chosen

ConstructionCNC MillingMold Assembly and FinishingCanoe ConstructionCastingCuringCanoe FinishingTransportation Box

Tech ReportWritingRevisionFinalSubmission

Presentation and DisplayTheme CreationStand ConstructionDisplay DesignDisplay ContructionPower PointRehearsal

PaddlingWorkoutsPaddling Practice

Official Team ChosenCompetitionManagement Transition

31/12

17/01

30/03

31/01

11 18 25 01 08 15 22 29 06 13 20 27 03 10 17 24 31 07 14 21 28 05 12 19 26 02 09 16 23 30 07 14 21 28 04 11 18 25 01 08 15 22 01 08 15 22 29 05 12 19 26 03 10 17 248 Jun '08 Jul '08 Aug '08 Sep '08 Oct '08 Nov '08 Dec '08 Jan '09 Feb '09 Mar '09 Apr '09 May '09

Task Baseline Milestone Task Group Summary Critical Path ElementsProject: University of Toronto Concrete

10

A

A

ITEM QUANTITY

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTOCONCRETE CANOE TEAM

MOLD DESIGN

ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm +/-1 mm UNLESS NOTED

SCALE AS INDICATED

PLAN VIEW1:25

ELECATION VIEW1:25

SECTION A-A1:10

B

DETAIL B - TYPICAL RIB AND GUNWHALE FORM1:2

Expanded polystyrene block

1.0 cubic m

50 thick expanded polystyrene

6.5 square m

Heat-shrink film 5.5 square m

38 wide adhesive membrane

33.3 m

75 long wooden skewer

50

DRAWN BY: M. Ferri

MARCH 23, 2009

50 THICK EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE

75 LONG WOODEN SKEWER

50 THICK EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE

VAPOUR RESISTANTADHESIVE MEMBRANE

CAST CONCRETE ALIGNED WITH EDGE OF THE MOLD

EXPANDEDPOLYSTYRENE

POLYOLEFIN HEAT-SHRINKFILM BEYOND

A1

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

anoe

a – references

1. American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading).” ASTM International Standard C293-02. West Conshohocken, PA.

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

3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens).” ASTM International Stan-dard C109/C109M-05. West Conshohocken, PA.

4. Birchall, J.D., Howard, A.J., and Kendall, K. (1981) “Flexural strength and porosity of cements.” Nature, 289, 388-390.

5. Kim, J., and Robertson, R. (1998) “Effects of Polyvinyl Alcohol on Aggregate-Paste Bond Strength and the Interfacial Transition Zone.” Advanced Cement Based Materials, 8, 66-76.

6. Kim, J., Robertson, R., and Naaman, A. (1999) “Structure and properties of poly(vinyl alcohol) modi-fied mortar and concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29, 407-415.

7. Singh, N.B., and Rai, S. (2000) “Effect of polyvinyl alcohol on the hydration of cement with rice husk ash.” Cement and Concrete Research, 31, 239-243.

8. Lin, Zhong and Li, Victor C., (1997) “Crack bridging in fiber reinforced cementicious composites with slip-hardening interfaces.” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 45(5), 763-787.

9. Ritchie, R. O., (1999) “Mechanisms of fatigue-crack propagation in ductile and brittle solids.” Inter-national Journal of Fracture, 100, 55-83.

10. 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.

11. Petrella et al. (2007) “Recycled waste glass as aggregate for lightweight concrete.” Construction Ma-terials, 160(4), 165-170.

12. Marclau, Medgar and VanGreen, Martha. (2007) “Solar reflectance of concretes for LEED sustain-able sites credit: Heat island effect.” SN2982. Portland Cement Association. Skokie, Illinois, USA. 94 pages.

B1

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

naoe

b – mixture proportionsTable 3.1 -- Summary of Mixture Proportions

Mixture: Non-Fiber (Core) MixBatch Size (L): 3

Cementitious Materials Specific*Gravity

Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)

Amount**(g)

Volume(L)

Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)

1. CSA A5 White Type 10 Portland Cement 3.15 156.763 0.050 470.29 0.149 154.50 0.0492. Type C Fly Ash 2.58 53.3 0.021 159.90 0.062 52.53 0.0203. Metakaolin 2.50 50.1633 0.020 150.49 0.060 49.44 0.0204. Colloidal Silica† 2.40 3.14 0.001 9.41 0.004 3.09 0.0015. Amorphous Calcium Aluminosilicate 2.60 50.16 0.019 150.49 0.058 49.44 0.019

Total of All Cementitious Materials 313.527 0.111 940.58 0.333 309.00 0.109Fibers

1. Dyneema (UHMWPE) 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000Aggregates

1. Expancel Microspheres Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.025 4.39 0.175 13.16 0.526 4.32 0.1732. Poraver 0.25-0.5 mm Abs: 2 vol%; MC: 0% 0.59 215.77 0.366 625.37 1.097 212.65 0.3603. S15 Microspheres Abs: 0%; MC: 0% 0.16 6.58333 0.041 19.75 0.123 6.49 0.041

Total of All Aggregates 226.741 0.582 658.28 1.747 223.466 0.574Water

Non-SSD Proportionsas Designed

Actual BatchedProportions

YieldedProportions

Batched Water 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00Water from Colloidal Silica Dispersion 1.00 9.4 9.4 28.2 28.2 9.26 9.26Total Water Added for Aggregate Absorption 1.00 7.1 7.1 21.2 21.2 6.97 6.97Total Water from All Admixtures^ 1.00 123.0 123.0 369.1 369.1 121.25 121.25

Total Water 125.4 125.4 376.1 376.1 123.5 123.5Solids Content of Latex Modifiers1. Acrylic Latex (Dow UCAR 412) 1.12 104.23 0.09 312.70 0.28 102.73 0.09

Total Latex Solids: 104.23 0.09 312.70 0.28 102.73 0.09

1. High Range Water Reducer 2.4 7.3 2.412. Air Entrainer 0.3 0.9 0.303. Poly(vinyl alcohol) - Density 1290 kg/m3 19.00 9.4 7.614 28.2 22.842 9.26 7.5044. Acrylic Latex - Density 1115 kg/m3 47.46 219.7 115.413 659.0 346.239 216.49 113.7465. Chromium Green - Density 5100 kg/m3 0.0 0.0 0.00

Cement-Cementitious Materials RatioWater-Cementitious Materials RatioSlump, cmDesign Air Content, %Density (Unit Weight), kg/m3

Gravimetric Air Content, %Yield, m3

Abs. = Absorption; MC = Batched moisture concrete; ‡ Water content of admixture.^ Including water added for aggregate absorption; § If impact on w/cm is less than 0.01 enter zero.* For aggregates, provide ASTM C 127 oven-dry bulk specific gravity.

0.40 0.40 0.400.50 0.50 0.50

Water‡ in Admixture

(g/L)

Amount(kg/m3)

Water‡ in Admixture (kg/m3)

Admixtures % Solids Amount(kg/m3)


Amount(g)

11.301.000 0.003 1.000

4.0 4.0 4.010.00

769.68 758.56 758.56

B2

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

naoe

Table 3.1 -- Summary of Mixture Proportions

Mixture: Fiber (Outside/Rib/Gunwale) MixBatch Size (L): 3


Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)

Amount**(g)

Volume(L)

Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)








YieldedProportions

WaterBatched Water 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00Water from Colloidal Silica Dispersion 1.00 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 9.86 9.86Total Water Added for Aggregate Absorption 1.00 6.7 6.7 20.1 20.1 6.60 6.60Total Water from All Admixtures^ 1.00 129.9 129.9 389.8 389.8 128.05 128.05




Cement-Cementitious Materials RatioWater-Cementitious Materials RatioSlump, cmAir Content, %Density (Unit Weight), kg/m3



Amount(kg/m3)


0.40



Amount(g)


0.50 0.50 0.500.40 0.40

1.000

1.0 1.0 1.010.00

801.03 789.46 789.4611.30

1.000 0.003

B3

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne C

naoe

Table 3.1 -- Summary of Mixture Proportions

Mixture: Pigment (Inside) MixBatch Size (L): 3


Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)

Amount**(g)

Volume(L)

Amount(kg/m3)

Volume(m3)








YieldedProportions

1. Total Batched Water^ 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.002. Water from Colloidal Silica Dispersion 1.00 9.4 9.4 28.2 28.2 9.26 9.263. Total Water Added for Agg. Absorption 1.00 6.9 6.9 20.6 20.6 6.78 6.784. Total Water from All Admixtures§ 1.00 122.9 122.9 368.7 368.7 121.13 121.13




Cement-Cementitious Materials RatioWater-Cementitious Materials RatioSlump, cmAir Content, %Density (Unit Weight), kg/m3





Amount(g)


Amount(kg/m3)


11.301.000 0.003 1.000

1.0 1.0 1.010.00

799.30 787.75 787.75

0.40 0.40 0.400.50 0.50 0.50

C1

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne c

naoe

Sieve Diameter (mm) Percent Finer

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

No. 16 1.18 100.00% No. 30 0.6 100.00% No. 50 0.3 9.28%No. 100 0.15 5%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Perc

ent F

iner

(%)

Diameter (mm)

Composite Aggregate Blend Gradation

Composite Aggregate Blend

c – gradation curves and tables

Aggregate Specific Gravity Mass Fraction

Poraver 0.25-0.5mm 0.59 95%3M S15 0.16 3%

Expancel 0.025 2%

C2

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne c

naoe

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

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Perc

ent F

iner

(%)

Diameter (mm)

Poraver 0.25 -0.5mm Gradation

Poraver 0.25-0.5mm

Concrete Aggregate: Poraver 0.25-0.5mmSample Weight (g): 66.74Specific Gravity: 0.59

C3

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne c

naoe


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%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Perc

ent F

iner

(%)

Diameter (mm)

S15 Microsphere Gradation

S15 Microspheres

Concrete Aggregate: S15 MicrospheresSample Weight (g): 18.62Specific Gravity: 0.16

C4

Uni

vers

ity

of T

oron

to T

he O

ne c

naoe

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0.1 1 10

Perc

ent F

iner

(%)

Diameter (mm)

Expancel Gradation

Expancel

Concrete Aggregate: Expancel MicrospheresSample Weight (g): 9.2Specific Gravity: 0.025


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%

Documents

THE ONE CANOE - technical report