Karjaisu

The Pennsylvania State University 2013-2014 Design Paper

The Pennsylvania state University

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... ii Project Management ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Hull Design and Structural Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3-4 Development and Testing ................................................................................................................................ 5-6 Construction .................................................................................................................................................... 7-8 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Design Drawing ................................................................................................................................................ 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 2013-2014 Man-Hours........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Hull Design IGES Model.................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Hull Design Cross Section Profile ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4: Concrete Test Batching....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Fiber Pullout Workability Test ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 6: CNC Cut Cross Sections ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 7: Female Mold Formwork ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Steel Reinforcement Cage .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 9: Canoe Hand Pack ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Canoe Specifications............................................................................................................................ ii Table 2: Concrete Properties .............................................................................................................................. ii Table 3: 7-Day Compressive Strength ................................................................................................................5 Table 4: Admixture Dosages ...............................................................................................................................6 Table 5: Actual and Required Concrete Properties .............................................................................................6 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - References ............................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Mixture Proportions .................................................................................................................B-1 Appendix C - Bill of Materials .......................................................................................................................C-1

The Pennsylvania state University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Inspired by tradition, a Penn State football game brings the community together, creating bonds and friendships that last a lifetime. Much of this camaraderie is shared beyond the gates of Beaver Stadium, and on game day it can be seen all along the fields and slopes of Happy Valley. It is the ritual of the Penn State tailgate that inspires the Penn State Concrete Canoe Team to roar its way to Johnstown, PA for the 2014 National Concrete Canoe Competition (NCCC). The Pennsylvania State University was founded in 1855 as a land-grant institution located in central Pennsylvania. More than 95,000 students spread over 24 campuses around the state call the university home. With enrollment exceeding 40,000 students at University Park, only 400 juniors and seniors are enrolled in the Civil and Environmental Engineering program. The Penn State Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, established in 1881, is known for its exceptional undergraduate and graduate engineering programs, of which were heralded as top 20 programs by a 2010 -2011 U.S. News and World Report. By striving for scholarship, research, and integrity, the Penn State Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering maintains a world-class education (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2013) Competing for a third consecutive year following a five year hiatus, it has been a difficult journey for the Penn State Concrete Canoe Team to reclaim its winning prowess. In the Mid-Atlantic Conference, Penn State has competed alongside four other universities and has placed last for two consecutive years. Highly motived and more experienced, the 2014 Penn State Concrete Canoe Team is a force to respect once again. Following a management structure overhaul, the 2014 Penn State team was able to successfully increase work productivity and efficiency, while significantly decreasing construction lead times. By mimicking an actual construction management team (owner, project manager, and construction manager) with a defined schedule, all aspects of design and construction were greatly accelerated. This enabled the team to pour two separate canoes, including one in December of 2013. Ultimately, the improvements to the management structure contributed significantly to the success of the 2014 team. The Penn State Concrete Canoe Team has chosen to christen the 2014 canoe as the KARJAISU (car-EE -i-zoo), which is Finnish for roar. Traditionally, Penn State canoes are named after Nordic words, from 2008s DREKKAR, 2012s UPPRISA, and 2013s KOVETUS. This year KARJAISU will roar its way to victory, learning much from the teams previous experiences, strong faculty advisor network, and team-driven attitude.
Table 1: Canoe Specifications Specifications Reinforcement Color: White, Blue, Brown, Depth: 12 in. 9 gage annealed Primary Green, Black steel wire Weight (est.): 250 lb. Beam: 30 in. 12 gage annealed Secondary steel wire Length: 19 ft. Thickness: 0.4 in. Mix Structural Unit Weight (Wet) 63 pcf Table 2: Concrete Properties Unit Weight (Dry) Compressive Strength 59 pcf 1800 psi (14 day) Modulus of Rupture 300 psi

ii

The Pennsylvania state University

PROJECT MANAGEMENT This year the Penn State Concrete Canoe Team implemented a standard design/build model for project development, construction, and completion. A leadership team consisting of an owner, project manager, and construction manager was created to effectively delegate responsibilities by specialty. The owner or team president, elected or hired a project manager and construction manager that would achieve the project milestones, while demonstrating superior work quality, efficiency, and adherence to project rules and regulations. The owner also directed team committees such as Paddling, Design Paper, Presentation, and Artistic Development, headed team meetings and events, ensured team unity, and promoted future leadership development training. The project manager was designated as the lead design engineer, chosen to deliver a practical, constructible, and reusable canoe mold and design. While working in unison with the owner, the project manager developed a project schedule and directed design committees such as Hull Design, Structural Design, and Mix Design. As a liaison between the construction manager and owner, the team project manager effectively communicated design requirements to the construction manager, while ensuring the completion of scheduled critical path milestones.

Figure 1: 2013-2014 Man-Hours

The construction manager headed all construction activities including mold construction, reinforcement fabrication, and canoe pours. Once given the preapproved designs from the project manager, the construction manager expertly lead weekly teams of up to 15 assistants, consistently progressing each week per the project schedule requirements. By delegating construction tasks amongst the veteran construction foreman, the construction manager instructed and supervised each subdivided construction team, while advocating craftsmanship and compliance to design standards. The construction manager also served as the team safety official ensuring that all team members were wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) at all times, including safety glasses, nitrile gloves, dust masks, and respirators. Prior to the start of the 2013-2014 academic year, the leadership team began budgeting funds for the 2014 canoe. Recalling successful business models, it was noted that smart investments are crucial to sustainable business budgets. Therefore, with sizable donations saved from the previous years, the team allocated $4,000 for project construction and research, with the goal of creating a reusable mold to serve as a long-term investment. Learning from actual construction projects, a clear, decisive critical path schedule was developed for the construction of the 2014 canoe. In previous years the completion dates of major milestones were lost in the complexity of a large, confusing schedule. By modifying the 2013-2014 schedule to highlight important critical milestones, each mini-project had a clear start and completion date in the overall scope of work. These milestones included mix design, hull design, structural design, construction, and finishing. A more refined schedule was developed as each milestone approached, but the finalized dates of each project were never forgotten in the context of a schedule that was too large as in years past.

The Pennsylvania state University

ORGANIZATION CHART
TEAM PRESIDENT Coordinated with managers and captains Recruited new members and leadership Directed team meetings and events Led production of design paper and presentation Communicated project rules and requirements Ryan McDevitt PROJECT MANAGER Created project schedule Managed hull, formwork, and reinforcement design Improved mix design spreadsheets Trained interested members in structural design Developed field construction drawings Matt Gombeda CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Headed all construction activities including mold construction, reinforcement fabrication, and pours Supervised weekly teams of up to 15 assistants Enforced team safety policies and procedures Regulated the acquisition of construction materials Matt Holm ARTISTIC DEVELOPMENT CAPTAIN Implemented theme throughout canoe body, display, and stands Directed all aesthetic activities including staining, painting, and graphic design Researched applicable display materials Amy Reimer PADDLING CAPTAIN Recruited and trained new paddlers Created weekly workout program Led team building activities Finalized paddling team Dana Burzo Artistic Development Assistants Melissa King Ryan McDevitt Matt Holm Matt Gombeda Adam Wilusz TREASURER Managed budget Coordinated fundraising efforts Organized travel logistics

Design Assistants Ryan McDevitt Matt Holm Tom Ross Matt Novak Seth Nicola Kim HuYoung Tom Pochatko

Construction Assistants Ryan McDevitt Matt Connolly Matt Holm Matt Butt Tom Ross Russel Keller Matt Novak Dana Burzo Seth Nicola Karl Leitner Kim HuYoung James Jackson Tom Pochatko Amy Reimer Chris Bomba Colin Barbish

Paddlers Dana Burzo Corinne Dally Amy Reimer James Jackson Matt Butt Chris Bomba

The Pennsylvania state University

HULL DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS The hull and structural design engineers were determined to optimize KARJAISU for race speed, maneuverability, and structural integrity. Jointly designed and evaluated, KARJAISU was idealized as a simply supported beam, modified to incorporate high strength structural characteristics while maintaining a sleek and efficient hull design. Speed, stability, agility, and maneuverability are the main aspects of a competitive canoe design; however, a fine balance of each is required to achieve the desired result. The competition races demand high sustained straight line speeds and responsive turning capabilities, but it is difficult to design for either without sacrificing proficiency in the other. Therefore, several design characteristics were considered to compliment both speed and maneuverability. Using SolidWorks (2013) to generate 3D canoe models for import into DELFTship (2013), a free hydrostatics analysis program, over two dozen models were generated and compared for straight line speed, resistance, and general hull characteristics. Much of the hydrostatics analysis of KARJAISU was assisted by DELFTship. By importing the IGES model from SolidWorks (Figure 2), the cross sections of KARJAISU were connected, scaled, and moved to allow Figure 2: Hull Design IGES Model for further analysis. A general DELFTship report highlights the volume, waterplane, midship, stability, and lateral plane properties of each model. Following each analysis, preliminary models were categorized and discarded, until stability, maneuverability, and speed were successfully integrated into the final design. To improve race performance, several design changes were implemented for KARJAISU. Firstly, the canoe beam was narrowed to 30 to increase the length-to-beam ratio (L/B) and the overall top speed. Secondly, while maintaining an overall length of 19, an additional 6 was added to the length of the bow to increase canoe asymmetry, which facilitates tracking and decreases wave resistance by increasing laminar flow. Thirdly, a bow rocker of 3 and a stern rocker of 2 were included to complement the movement of the beam aft. By offsetting the rockers, the longitudinal center of buoyancy was maintained near the beam location, maximizing speed without sacrificing directional stability. Fourthly, the cross-sectional hull shape was broadened from a round to a shallow arch shape to increase primary stability and decrease secondary stability. Although secondary stability does maximize the righting arm angle when the canoe is heeled, the paddlers requested less heeling via an increase in primary stability to better maintain speed and form. Following DELFTship hydrostatic analysis, a metacentric height of 1.2 feet was evaluated for KARJAISU, which is 400% higher than the vertical center of buoyancy of 0.3 feet, resulting in high initial stabilFigure 3: Hull Design Cross Section Profile ity.

The Pennsylvania state University

The last major design alteration was in the general plan view shape of the canoe. Displaced volume was sacrificed by decreasing the beam; therefore, the cross sectional width was generally maintained along the length of the canoe to increase the design draft of KARJAISU. This also slightly increased the block coefficient to 0.41, consequently decreasing speed. To offset this loss, a narrow or fine bow bulkhead and a well-defined keel was included, resulting in a high prismatic coefficient of 0.65, common for racing canoes. Once the optimal hull design was established, the structural analysis of the 3D SolidWorks model of KARJAISU ensued. The canoe was idealized as a simply supported beam to simulate the highest bending stresses within the structure. Although the forces on a canoe are much more uniformly distributed in water, a beam analysis approach was the most conservative and efficient method to model and analyze the design. Adhering to the ASCE 7-10 (2013) guidelines, several load combinations were utilized to determine the maximum intended load effects on the canoe. Firstly, the canoe was designed to support its own dead weight since it must span two supports during the display phase. Secondly, the canoe was designed to support additional live load from the paddlers. Thirdly, dynamic loading from the movement from paddling was also considered. After determining all loads and the controlling load combination equation, an ultimate uniform distributed load was determined, and the maximum moment at midship was calculated Once the loading analysis was completed, the structural design phase began. All design components were in compliance with ACI 318-11 (2011). Using the maximum moment, an area of steel needed for strength (As) was determined per ACI 318 Chapter 9 using equation (1) and solving for As where =0.9 for flexure. (1) Using that value, it was determined that 48 twelve gauge annealed steel wires running both circumferentially and longitudinally along the canoe were required. Additional steel was added in areas where the concentration of tensile stresses was higher than normal, such as the gunwales and keel. Steel wires were also wrapped around the bulkheads of KARJAISU to ensure that no cracking developed along the keel. Lastly, steel was included above the bulkhead form and tied into the main structure to withstand any uplift force from the foam. In addition to flexure, the concrete was also designed for two -way or punching shear. Using ACI 318-11 equation <11-33> (2), the shell thickness was determined to be sufficient in withstanding the punching load of a paddlers knee where =0.75 for shear. (2) By idealizing KARJAISU as a beam, the canoe analysis and design was much more simple and efficient. Although KARJAISU is overdesigned for tensile strength and both one and two-way shear resistance, it is still an effective design considering the amount of research that was invested. In summary, the canoe complies with ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-11 code requirements, and is more than sufficient to handle all applicable loads.

The Pennsylvania state University

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING Building upon experience gained from constructing KOVETUS in 2013, the team was able to design the mixes for this years canoe without much apprehension. Spreadsheets were enhanced to accommodate additional admixtures and to monitor all aspects of proportioning. Although workability and strength were prior issues, this year the team focused on constructability and ease of batching. Local materials were utilized whenever possible. To develop sufficient structural strength while maintaining desired hull design characteristics, the mix design goals were to achieve a 1750 psi mix with a wet unit weight of approximately 60 pcf. This years design necessitated the use of a female mold, which required a fine balance between mix workability and paste content to allow the concrete to maintain its desired shape. Using ASTM C150 (2012) compliant Type I/II and Type III Portland cements, parallel testing was conducted until the design specified workability and strength were achieved. Motivated by positive test results, the first (practice) canoe was cast using the Type III mix. Despite other contributing factors, significant shrinkage cracking occurred largely due to the use of the Type III mix. To prevent such cracking on the second (competition) canoe, the mix design team implemented a Type I/II based mix supplemented by a shrinkage reducing admixture (SRA). By using ASTM C618 (2012) compliant Class C Fly Ash Table 3: 7-Day Compressive Strength (readily produced in Central Pennsylvania power plants), both Cement Type 7-Day fc (psi) Type I/II and Type III concrete mixes included 30% suppleI/II 1800 mentary cementitious materials (SCM). After testing, the deIII 2150 sign specified 1750 psi was exceeded by compressive strengths at 7 days for the Type I/II and Type III mixes of 1850 psi and 2150 psi, respectively (Table 3). In order to achieve the desired workability and unit weight, a proper blend of lightweight aggregate gradations was essential. Aggregates such as Poraver recycled glass microspheres and K25 glass bubbles were implemented once again. K25 is a glass bubble product manufactured by 3M that has very low specific gravity of 0.25 (3M, 2007). By adding volume without much weight, Poraver and K25 significantly contributed to low unit weight of the mix. The third and final aggregate used was local quarry sand. The sand was sieved passed the #16 screen in order to achieve a proper gradation for the smooth mix design. Using a high-range water reducer (HRWR), Glenium 7500, the mix design team was able to achieve the necessary workability without sacrificing strength. Glenium 7500 (ASTM 494/C 494M, 2013) allowed for a mix water-to-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.35-0.40, which enabled the development of the high crushing strengths. By chemically altering the cementitious properties during batching, Glenium 7500 breaks the bonds between cement particles, relieves inter-molecular forces, and ultimately creates a more workable mix without the need for more water.
Figure 4: Concrete Test Batching

The Pennsylvania state University

Since excess Glenium Table 4: Admixture Dosages 7500 can cause mix segreType Recommended Dosage gation, mix dosages were Admixture HRWR 2-15 fl.oz/cwt carefully monitored. By Glenium 7500 inserting an initial dosage 0.5-1.5 gal/yd3 of Glenium 7500, and by Masterlife SRA20 SRA slowly adding more following the addition of batching water, the necessary workability was achieved.
Actual Dosage 20 fl.oz/cwt 3 fl.oz/cwt

ASTM 494/C 494M (2013) compliant for Type S, Specific Performance, BASF Masterlife SRA 20 was chosen to address the shrinkage cracking concerns presented by the first canoe. Following experimental testing, a dosage of approximately 3 oz./cwt of cementitious material was chosen for the batching of the second canoe. A SRA complemented by a transition to Type I/II Portland cement mix, significantly relieved the surface tension of the water molecules in the concrete, thus resulting in little to no shrinkage cracking in KARJAISU. Glass fibers were Table 5: Actual and Required Concrete Properties also dispersed Property Analysis Requirements Actual Properties throughout each Type I/II batch to further de7-Day Compressive Strength 1500 psi 1800 psi velop the localized Modulus of Rupture 300 psi 400 psi strength characteristics of the concrete. Type III 7-Day Compressive Strength 1500 psi 2150 psi The ASTM C1116 Modulus of Rupture 300 psi 500 psi (2010) compliant fiberglass material was essential to increase the modulus of rupture for the concrete. This enabled the concrete to develop a higher resistance to gunwale chipping and other localized tension failures. The quantity of fibers was experimentally determined based on workability and structural demands. By carefully controlling the fiber dosage, the high modulus of rupture was achieved without sacrificing workability and creating new troweling issues. Standard testing procedures were implemented throughout the mix design and testing process. Plastic concrete cylinder molds (4 diameter by 8 high) were cast for compressive strength testing per ASTM C39 (2012). Pressurized air testing per ASTM C231 (2010) was also conducted to determine the air content present in each mix. The mix design team also developed several of their own workability tests to properly evaluate the mixes. Many of these in-house tests were conducted to evaluate the workability and strength of the concrete with the adFigure 5: Fiber Pullout Workability Test dition of glass fibers. For example, a test was developed to evaluate fiber content for troweling purposes. If the fibers were pulled out of the concrete by the finishing tools, the content would need to be reduced. Additionally, the significance of the fibers in preventing shear failures was evaluated by examining the failure mechanisms of the test cylinders.

The Pennsylvania state University

CONSTRUCTION The ideology of simple innovation governed the construction of KARJAISU. By fairly evaluating the skill and knowledge of the construction team, an intricate, yet simplistic mold and structural design was developed. These designs allowed for streamlined construction projects that steadily and simultaneously progressed to completion. Using this ideology, the construction team was able to complete a multifaceted female mold and male mold system, multiple canoe castings, and aesthetic finishing with minimal manpower. Enabled by such an innovative design, the construction team was able to build and finish two separate canoes prior to the end of February 2014. By emphasizing and developing a strong, pro-safety attitude, safety was practiced during all construction activities. Beyond advocating a safety culture, all team members were required to receive basic power tools training from The Pennsylvania State University Learning Factory safety program, review the Civil Infrastructure Testing and Evaluation Laboratory (CITEL) safety program, and attend a team designed safety training and facilities tour. These training activities included lessons on emergency procedures and the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) including face shields, safety glasses and work gloves, and laboratory equipment. Advanced training in first aid and hazardous waste material disposal was required for team managers. Material selection for construction projects was highly influenced by the simple innovation design ideology. This required using materials that were workable, accessible, and economically viable for form and aesthetic display construction. These materials included lumber, steel, plasters, and epoxies. Economic and environmental concerns were also considered when choosing these materials. By limiting the use of expensive and environmentally harmful agents such as chemical epoxies, and by removing the need for energy intensive materials such as steel alloys, material costs and environmental impacts were easily marginalized. The female mold was designed to be placed on a multi-axis table constructed from four double laminated 2x4 legs attached to 6 exposed all-thread. The all-thread was then sunk into concrete floor allowing for the entire table to be leveled in multiple directions (multi-axis). The laminated legs supported the full form length and double laminated 2x8s longitudinally supFigure 6: CNC Cut ported the mold sections. Additionally, the longitudinal supports were Cross Sections braced in the transverse direction with 45 degree 2x4s. The multi-axis female mold table elevated the mold to 4-1 above the floor for easy casting and removal. The female mold used to cast the canoe, was assembled from (56) , (37) , and (36) 1 plywood CNC cut cross sections. These cross sections were then assembled using a CNC cut jig designed to equally space all cross sections. A double layer of 1 wide, 1/8 thick luan strips was then placed along these sections allowing for the smooth transition between cross sections.

Figure 7: Female Mold Formwork

The Pennsylvania state University

After placing the luan, all ten mold sections were attached to the multi-axis table by bolting laminated 2x4 legs to the table and section. The sections were then aligned and the table was then leveled in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Next, the bow and stern bulkheads were assembled using a total of 129 CNC routed cross sections, which were held together by (16) 2 foot long all-thread tightened to form a large block. The fully assembled formwork was then covered in a thick, water-based epoxy coating and cut at each mold section joint. Constructed from 85 CNC routed cross sections, the male mold was used for the fabrication of the steel reinforcement cage. The cross sections were assembled, covered with luan strips and coated in a thick SHEETROCK joint-compound layer. The plaster layer was necessary to space the steel reinforcement at the desired depth and to allow for a fireproof welding surface. The steel reinforcement cage was fabricated using 9 and 12 gauge annealed steel wire. The 12 gauge wire was spaced at 1 longitudinally and transversely along the full length of the mold. Due to the circumferential nature of the mold, the 12 gauge wire was cut and tapered along the keel towards the bulkheads. Along the asymmetric axis, where the highest moments are located, additional reinforcement was provided by adding the thicker 9 gauge wire at the center four feet of the canoe. All wire was interlocked using 3 zip ties to allow for ideal steel-on-steel welding seams. All splice connections and general overlapping seams were welded per the development length requirements and load transfer requirements of the steel wire. The female mold was prepared for placement by securing all mold sections together with L brackets. The inside of the Figure 8: Steel formwork was then covered in Crisco for easy release and Reinforcement Cage form removal. Next, the steel cage was suspended in the form by welded all-thread overhangs. Following form and reinforcement placement, the concrete pour commenced. Using a hand packed mix, a team was placed at each bulkhead and slowly worked towards the middle, constantly verifying the concrete depth of by using nail depth checkers. All concrete was placed and consolidated by using modified palm sanders with foam head attachments. The hand cut foam bulkhead inserts were also vibrated into place using the modified palm sanders. Once the pour was completed, the canoe was allocated two weeks to cure, covered by burlap and plastic sheets and saturated daily.

Once two weeks passed, the formwork was removed, and the canoe was removed and placed on a level, foam cushioned table for finishing. The team sanded and shaped high points and excess concrete along the profile of the canoe. This shaping was done using a mason stone and sandpaper progressing from 40 to 120 grit. The sanding ultimately created a level gunwale profile and a clean, smooth surface for the inside and outside of the canoe. Following finishing, the canoe was left to cure for the final two weeks of the 28 day curing process. Once the final two weeks passed, concentration then shifted to canoe aesthetics and display construction lead by the Artistic Development Team. While the Construction Team focused on stands and table displays, the artistic team used water based concrete stains to hand paint the tailgate theme of KARJAISU. After the concrete stain dried, the construction team applied a concrete sealer and clear coat to protect the applied imagery. 8

Figure 9: Canoe Hand Pack

The Pennsylvania state University

The Pennsylvania state University

10

The Pennsylvania state University

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES 3M. (2007). 3M Scotchlite Glass Bubbles K and S Series Product Info. <www.3m.com> (Mar. 10, 2014). ACI Committee 318 (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI 318 -11, Farmington Hills, MI. Altoona Area High School (2013). NCAA begins to reduce outrageous PSU sanctions. Beaver Stadium Whiteout Game <http://mtecho.aasdcat.com/?p=2310> (Mar. 10, 2014). ASCE (2013). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE 7-10, Reston, VA ASCE/NCCC (2014). 2014 American Society of Civil Engineer National Concrete Canoe Competition: Rules and Regulations. <http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Concrete_Canoe/ Rules_and_Regulations/2014%20ASCE%20NCCC%20Rules%20and%20Regulations.pdf> (Mar. 10, 2014). ASTM (2010). Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. C1116/C1116M-10a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2010). Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method. C231/C231M-10, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2012). Standard Specifications for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. C618-12a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2012). Standard Specification for Portland Cement. C150/C150M-12, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2012). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. C39/C39M-12a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2013). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. C494/C494M-13, West Conshohocken, PA. BASF Corporation (2013). Glenium 7500 Data Sheet. <http://www.basf-admixtures.com/en/ products/highrange/glenium7500/Pages/default.aspx>. (Dec. 13, 2013). BASF Corporation (2013). MasterLife SRA 20 Data Sheet. <http://www.basf-admixtures.com/en/ products/shrinkage_reducing/masterlife_sra20/Pages/default.aspx>. (Dec. 13, 2013). Dassault Systmes SolidWorks Corp. (2013). SolidWorks Education Edition (Version 2013 SP4.0) [Software]. <http://www.solidworks.com/> (Oct. 18, 2013). DELFTship BV (2013). DELFTship free (Version 6.21.252) [Software]. <http://www.delftship.net/ delftship/> (Oct. 18, 2013). A-1

The Pennsylvania state University

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (2013). Overview of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department . <http://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/aboutus.html> (Mar. 10, 2014). The Pennsylvania State University, Concrete Canoe. (2012) Upprisa. NCCC Design Paper, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University, Concrete Canoe. (2013) Kovetus. NCCC Design Paper, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. ScenicReflections (2012). Penn State Football - Beaver Stadium Wallpaper. <http://www.scenicreflections.com/media/35154/penn_state_football_-_beaver_stadium_wallpaper/> The Stadium Shoppe (2014). Penn State Nittany Lions - Beaver Stadium City Print . <http:// www.thestadiumshoppe.com/images/cs_psu_1.jpg> (Mar. 10, 2014).

A-2

The Pennsylvania state University

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS 2013 Concrete Canoe Mix Design Type III Portland Cement Mix

B-1

The Pennsylvania state University

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS 2013 Concrete Canoe Mix Design Type I/II Portland Cement Mix

B-2

The Pennsylvania state University

APPENDIX C: BILL OF MATERIALS Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost $7.92 $27.00 $5.50 $1.55 $143.75 $2.10 $0.60 $38.00 $13.86 $3.50 $0.00 $1.40 $143.75 $4.20 $0.65 $38.00 $2,400.00 $100.00 $6.00 $53.70 $188.44 $17.68 $60.00 $20.00 $3,277.60

Mix (Type I/II Portland Cement) Type I/II Portland Cement 72 lb. $0.11 /lb. Glenium 7500 54 fl. oz. $0.50 /fl. oz. Masterlife SRA20 11 fl. oz. $0.50 /fl. oz. Class C Fly Ash 31 lb. $0.05 /lb. 3M K25 23 lb. $6.25 /lb. Poraver 0.25mm - 0.50mm 3 lb. $0.70 /lb. Local Quarry Sand 12 lb. $0.05 /lb. Fibercast 500 Synthetic Fiber 3.8 lb. $10.00 /lb. Mix (Type III Portland Cement) Type III Portland Cement 66 lb. $0.21 /lb. Glenium 7500 7 fl. oz. $0.50 /fl. oz. Masterlife SRA20 0 fl. oz. $0.50 /fl. oz. Class C Fly Ash 28 lb. $0.05 /lb. 3M K25 23 lb. $6.25 /lb. Poraver 0.25mm - 0.50mm 6 lb. $0.70 /lb. Local Quarry Sand 13 lb. $0.05 /lb. Fibercast 500 Synthetic Fiber 3.8 lb. $10.00 /lb. Construction/Finishing Materials Formwork/Mold (Complete) Lump Sum $2,400 Twelve Gage Steel Wire 2000 ft. 0.05 /ft. Nine Gage Steel Wire 120 ft. 0.05 /ft. 2 in. dia. black steel pipe 15 ft. $3.58 /ft. Valspar Stain 7 gallon $26.92 /gallon White Enamel Auto Spray Paint 4 cans $4.42 /can Sealer 150 fl. oz. $0.40 /fl. oz. Bulkhead Foam 40 sq. ft. $0.50 /sq. ft. Total Production Cost

C-1