2021

Concrete

Canoe

Northern Arizona University

i | P a g e

February 19, 2021

Dear Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions,

Attached to this letter is the Technical Proposal from the 2020-2021 Northern Arizona University Concrete Canoe

Team. This document is the response to the Request for Proposal for the concrete canoe design. The attached

Technical Proposal displays the developed design from the Northern Arizona University Team.

The proposal hull design, concrete mixture design, and the reinforcement scheme are in full compliance with the

specifications outlined in the Request for Proposal. All relevant Material Data Sheets and Safety Data Sheets for

materials proposed for the construction of the canoe have been reviewed by the team. The team is in receipt of

the Request for Information Summary and this submission complies with the RFI responses provided. The

registered participants are qualified student members and Society Student Members of ASCE and meet all

eligibility requirements. The registered participants are as follows:

Marie Cook (she/her/hers) #11377521

Russell Collins (he/him/his) #11850616

Kyle Julle (he/him/his) #12218306

Scott Murphy (he/him/his) #12218476

Ryan Wassenberg (he/him/his) #12218188

Please contact the Project Manager, Marie Cook, if there are any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Northern Arizona University 2020-2021 Concrete Canoe Team

Marie Cook

Team Captain

Phone: (619)-540-7126 Email: mrc458@nau.edu

Marie Cook

Mark Lamer

ASCE Student Chapter Faculty Advisor

Phone: (928)-699-3860 Email: mark.lamer@nau.edu

Mark Lamer

ii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 ASCE Student Chapter Profile...................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Key Team Members ...................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ........................................................................................................................ 3

4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH.............................................................................................................................. 4

4.1 Hull Design ................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Structural Design .......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.3 Mix Design.................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4 Proposed Construction Process ................................................................................................................... 10

4.5 Scope, Schedule, and Fee ............................................................................................................................ 11

4.6 Quality Control and Quality Assurance ...................................................................................................... 12

4.7 Sustainability............................................................................................................................................... 13

4.8 Health & Safety / Impact of COVID .......................................................................................................... 13

5.0 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS and PRIMARY MIXTURE CALCULATIONS ......................... 19

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS ............................................................................. 22

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS ........................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX E: HULL/REINFORCEMENT & PERCENT OPEN AREA CALCULATIONS .......................... 31

APPENDIX F: DETAILED FEE ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 33

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Concrete Properties ............................................................................................................................... 1

Table 1-2: Proposed Dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 1

Table34-1: Summary of Structural Calculation Values ........................................................................................... 6

Table44-2 Physical Properties of Aggregates .......................................................................................................... 7

Table54-3 Applicable Concrete Mixes .................................................................................................................... 9

Table64-4 Mix Design Rubric ............................................................................................................................... 10

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Distribution of Predicted Hours.............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 2 Perlite Data Sheet (1).............................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 3 Perlite Data Sheet (2).............................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 4 Letter of Intent ........................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 5 Pre-Qualification Form Page 1 ............................................................................................................... 34

Figure 6 Pre-Qualification Form Page 2 ............................................................................................................... 35

Figure 7 Pre-Qualification Form Page 3 ............................................................................................................... 36

Figure 8 Acknowledgment of Addendum No. 1 ................................................................................................... 37

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1 | P a g e

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This year’s proposed canoe from the Northern

Arizona University’s Concrete Canoe Team,

Ponderosa, is inspired by the location of the

University itself, Flagstaff Arizona. Flagstaff is a

small mountain town at 7,000 feet elevation nestled

among the ponderosa pines of the Coconino Forest.

Although Arizona is known for its desert and

strikingly warm temperatures, Flagstaff is quite the

opposite with harsh winters and winter activity

attractions such as Snowbowl, the local ski hill. Often

people are found making the trek up to Flagstaff from

Phoenix on the I-17. Those that have made this drive

before know that once the scenery changes from cacti

to pine trees, Flagstaff is not far. Because of this

change of scenery specific to Flagstaff, this year’s

team felt it only right to choose a theme that would

fully encompass the Flagstaff environment.

In recent years, NAU’s Agassiz (2020),

VolCanoe (2019), and Canoopa (2018) placed at the

regional conference at 9

, 11

, and 8

, respectively.

This year’s NAU canoe team is not satisfied with the

final places earned by recent NAU teams and is

determined to improve the overall legacy of the NAU

Canoe program. Although this year’s competition

looks very different than any other year, Ponderosa

identified areas of improvement for each of the scored

categories for the 2021 competition.

The focus of this year’s team is maximizing

sustainability in any area possible. For this reason,

along with respecting the COVID restrictions and

encouraging the safest work environment for the

members, the team decided against constructing a

canoe for this year’s competition. Instead of

constructing a canoe, the team decided to invest their

time into simplifying the mix design, improving

construction techniques, and increasing mentee

involvement.

One of the notable efforts toward simplifying

the mix design and maximizing sustainability includes

acquiring locally sourced materials. Within the

proposed mix design, 72 percent of the materials by

volume have been locally sourced in Arizona. This

allows for minimal travel and shipping for material

acquisition.

Notable strengths of the proposed design

include a simplified shotcrete mix that will improve

the constructability of the canoe. The use of shotcrete

eliminates the need for post tensioning, decreases the

amount of manpower needed to pour the canoe itself,

and allows for greater quality control in terms of the

canoe thickness. Thickness control has been a long-

standing challenge with previous NAU teams because

of the use of a hand-placing technique. NAU’s

Dreadnoughtus (2015) was one of the few NAU teams

to utilize shotcrete in their design and although it takes

extra work and mix design testing, this extra effort did

not go unnoticed as they placed 3

overall at the

regional conference. Table 1-1 summarizes the

concrete properties of the proposed mix design.

Table 1-1: Concrete Properties

Concrete Properties

Property Mix Value Units

Wet Density

93.3

pcf

Dry Density (Oven dry)

92.4

pcf

Compressive Strength

(

day

)

2250 psi

Tensile Strength 332 psi

Composite Flexural Strength 267 psi

Slump 8-9 inch

Calculated Air Content

*based on 7-day tests assuming 70% strength at the time.

Differing from that of Agassiz, Ponderosa’s

hull design utilizes an asymmetrical design to improve

maneuverability and the overall rowing experience.

The width of the canoe was increased by

approximately 10 percent to improve the balance of

the rowers while competing. The thickness of the

canoe was maintained with the objective that unlike

previous years, the constructed thickness would stay

consistent with the design thickness. Table 1-2 below

summarizes the proposed dimensions of Ponderosa.

Table 1-2: Proposed Dimensions

A large goal of this year is to work closely with

the mentees to expose them to the process of designing

a concrete canoe. The mentees will be present and

involved in construction testing so that when it comes

times to construct the proposed canoe, there will be

students with the experience and skills to do so.

Ponderosa Proposed Dimensions

Length

216

inches

Width 30 inches

Depth

inches

Thickness

0.5

inches

Weight 267

pounds

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

2 | P a g e

2.0 PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM

2.1 ASCE Student Chapter Profile

The goal of Northern Arizona University’s

ASCE Student Chapter is to increase a student’s

professional and personal networks. In previous years,

the chapter has facilitated intramural sporting events

for chapter members to encourage a team-building

environment. In recent history, the ASCE Student

chapter has organized events such as hiking, bowling,

tailgating, and meal nights with members to provide

an environment that students can easily make friends

and expand their personal networks. General meetings

are held biweekly and usually consist of presentations

given by professionals at various companies, giving

students the opportunity to expand their professional

networks. Professionals present on anything from

technical engineering work to their personal

experiences throughout their career. Students are

encouraged to bring resumes to these general meetings

so that they can build relationships with professionals.

To ensure students feel comfortable bringing their

resumes to company presentations, the chapter holds

bi-monthly general meetings as resume builders. This

way, students can receive help from faculty,

professionals, and peers in a relaxed environment.

All these events have been held in-person in

recent years, prior to COVID. Since this past year has

been all but normal, the chapter has learned to adapt to

developing these environments virtually. General

meetings are held virtually with company

presentations whenever possible. Resume workshops

have also been held virtually along with homework

hours which give students the opportunity to join and

receive help from other students on engineering work

and professional development. By doing this, the

underclassmen who may not have had in-person

experiences with the ASCE chapter, can still be

involved and build their professional and personal

networks.

The ASCE Student Chapter encourages

students at all levels to become involved because

relationship building can never start too early.

Students are encouraged to get involved in the

chapter’s sports, technical projects (such as concrete

canoe), and outside events through peer outreach. Due

to COVID restrictions, the NAU ASCE Student

Chapter has learned to provide these outreach

programs through virtual platforms.

2.2 Key Team Members

The team is composed of five key members:

Russell Collins, Marie Cook, Kyle Julle, Scott

Murphy, and Ryan Wassenberg.

Russell Collins, the Mix Design Lead, is

responsible for material research, concrete mix design,

and testing. Although Russell oversees the mix design

process, all of the key team members along with the

mentees are present during the mixing and testing of

the concrete to ensure Russell has the necessary

manpower to complete the tasks.

Marie Cook, the Project Manager, is

responsible for the project schedule, deliverable

maintenance, fundraising, finances, and other

assistance where necessary. Marie oversees all areas

of technical work to ensure the project is on schedule

and within budget. She provides support to the QA/QC

lead during the design and construction process to

verify that all deliverables and work completed follow

the necessary guidelines and methods.

Kyle Julle, the Hull Design Lead, is

responsible for researching and designing the hull of

the canoe. Kyle will utilize SolidWorks for the initial

hull design and will then optimize the hydrodynamics

of the design through analysis in MAXSURF. He will

also assist the Structural Design Lead in finalizing the

structural calculations and drafting the construction

drawings.

Scott Murphy, the Structural Design Lead, is

responsible for designing reinforcement and

completing the necessary structural calculations. Scott

will conduct material acquisition and testing for the

proposed reinforcement. He must ensure the canoe

will be structurally sound with the provided loadings.

Ryan Wassenberg, the Quality Assurance and

Quality Control Lead, is responsible for ensuring all

the work completed by the team meets the rules and

regulations set in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Ryan also oversees quality control management

during mixing and testing. This includes verifying that

proper ASTM testing procedures are being followed

throughout the course of the project. All five of the key

team members have experience as a mentee on a

previously constructed canoe at NAU which provides

an advantage during this difficult year.

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3 | P a g e

3.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Marie Cook (Sr.)

Project Manager

Ryan Wassenberg (Sr.)

QA/QC Lead

Encourage team leadership,

manage scheduling,

fundraising, and deliverables.

Manage quality assurance and

control through mixing and

testing; ensure all deliverables

meet rules and regulations.

Russell Collins (Sr.)

Mix Design Lead

Scott Murphy (Sr.)

Structural Design Lead

Kyle Julle (Sr.)

Hull Design Lead

Conduct material research

along with develop and test

final mix design.

Execute the structural analysis

along with material research and

implementation of reinforcement.

Perform hull research and design

along with draft construction

documents.

2020

2021

Mentees

Dylan Condra (So.)

Hunter Kassens (Jr.)

Mason Timosko (So.)

Mark Ingersoll (Sr.)

ASCE Faculty Advisor

Mark Lamer, P.E.

Team Captain

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

4 | P a g e

4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

4.1 Hull Design

The main goal of the overall design of the hull

was to increase the maneuverability of the canoe and

provide enough buoyancy for a heavier mix. To

accomplish this goal, the canoe was designed with an

asymmetrical shape. As a team, two separate canoe

designs were considered, an asymmetrical design and

a symmetrical design. Through practicing rowing with

different shapes, it was determined that the

asymmetrical design yields better handling and

tracking. With the asymmetrical design, the bow of the

canoe is 120 inches (10 feet) and the stern is 96 inches

(8 feet). This causes the widest point of the canoe to

be located off center with a width of 30 inches (2.5

feet). No ribs were added due to the narrow design.

The cross section of the canoe was designed to

have a flatter round bottom, a shallower vee, and

slightly angled out gunwales. The main purpose of

these design choices was to improve the stability of the

overall canoe. NAU rowing teams have little time to

practice rowing because the lake used for practice is

often frozen. All the design improvements are meant

to help give the edge to inexperienced rowers and

provide a stable feeling within the canoe. The

calculated freeboard of the canoe for the 2-person

loading and the 4-person loading is 0.42 ft and 0.35 ft,

respectively.

The overall dimensions of the canoe have been

scaled up from the previous year’s design. The

dimensions of the canoe are larger to counteract the

weight of the concrete mix. A larger width and length

will cause more water to be displaced and therefore

generates a larger buoyant force. This increase in force

allows for the mix design to be heavier and the canoe

to maintain proper flotation. To increase the flotation

ability, two foam bulkheads with a length of 1.5 feet

will be placed at the bow and stern of the canoe. The

projected weight of the canoe is 267 pounds.

The canoe design will be reinforced with a

basalt mesh throughout the hull. The main goal of the

mesh is to increase the strength of the canoe for

transportation and rowing. The canoe will be

transported in a reinforced cage to minimize the

transportation and torsional stress.

In previous years, the rowers of the canoe have

felt unstable, so a focus of this year’s design is

concentrated on the balance of the rowers in the canoe.

The design was geared to making the rowers feel

stable, spacious, and maneuverable in the water. The

canoe team wants the experience of rowing the canoe

to be effortless.

4.2 Structural Design

Designing the structural aspects of the canoe

started with setting goals for different properties of the

concrete mix that would help the performance of the

design. The goal of the structural analysis was to

determine the strength needed for the concrete mix

while ensuring the final product is structurally sound.

The structural analysis and design included

determining what the best option for mesh

reinforcement was, the requirements for the mix

design to be able to work, and other analysis that helps

the team to understand what loadings and stresses the

canoe could endure.

The first step in the structural analysis was

determining the mesh reinforcement to be used inside

the concrete layers. The team decided on the mesh

based off of multiple factors that included

sustainability, cost, constructability, and effectiveness.

The team compared two different mesh

reinforcements, a basalt mesh and a fiberglass mesh.

The fiberglass mesh excelled in the constructability

category because of its ability to be shaped to the

contours of the hull design with ease. However, the

basalt mesh made the concrete stronger based on the

testing performed. The team has a large abundance of

this mesh readily available for use. The basalt mesh

was chosen largely because it is sustainable, cost-

effective, and provides adequate strength properties to

Ponderosa.

Following the determination of the mesh

reinforcement, the canoe was analyzed with various

loading scenarios. The loadings required by the

Committee on the Concrete Canoe Competition (C4)

were a two-person paddler loading (that included a

cargo load in the center) along with a four-person

paddler loading [1]. These loadings are meant to

represent the loading scenarios that Ponderosa would

endure during a two-person race and a four-person

race. In order to complete the analysis, the team treated

the canoe as a uniform concrete beam with straight

edges and 90-degree corners. Along with the required

loadings, the canoe will experience loadings from the

buoyancy force of the water underneath the canoe. The

self-weight of the canoe was determined using the unit

weight of the concrete mix along with the volume of

the hull. This self-weight was calculated to be 14.82

lb/ft, resulting in approximately a 267 lb force, which

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

5 | P a g e

was considered to be a uniformly distributed loading

experienced on the full length of the canoe.

The two-person loading included two 200-lb

point forces acting at 15% and 85% of the canoe’s

length from the bow. A cargo load of 100 lb/ft for 5

feet was also added at the direct center of the canoe.

Using these loadings along with the self-weight of

Ponderosa, a resultant force of approximately 1167

lbs was considered to be acting downward on the

canoe. The buoyancy force acting on the canoe was

determined based on the canoe’s depth in the water

and the volume displaced by the canoe. Using the

resultant force acting on the canoe, the volume

displaced was determined and then used along with the

density of water and gravity to determine a 64.89 lb/ft

buoyancy force acting along the full length of the

canoe. Because the loading experienced for the two-

person race is symmetrical, the buoyancy force was

assumed to be a uniformly distributed force acting in

the positive y-direction along the canoe.

The four-person loading includes two 200-lb

point loads acting at 30% and 75% of the canoe length

from the bow as well as two 150-lb point loads acting

at 15% and 90% of the canoe length from the bow. The

buoyancy force for the four-person loading required a

more in-depth analysis than the two-person loading.

This was due to the unsymmetrical loading that is

experienced by the four-person scenario; therefore, the

buoyancy force could not be assumed to be a

uniformly distributed load. Instead, the buoyancy

force was distributed such that the location of its

resultant would be acting at the same position as the

resultant of the other forces. This location was

determined to be 8.55 feet from the stern of the canoe.

The buoyancy force was calculated using the same

method as the two-person loadings scenario except

that the loading was assumed to be a triangular loading

that has a 10 lb/ft load at each end with a 97.43 lb/ft

loading acting at 8.55 feet from the stern of the canoe.

Using the free body diagrams for both the two-

person and four-person loadings, the team used

Microsoft Excel

to construct the shear force and

bending moment diagrams for both loading scenarios.

The maximum bending moment was experienced

during the 4-person loading and was determined to be

846 lb-ft at 9.45 feet from the bow of the canoe. This

value represents the largest bending moment that the

canoe will endure during the different loading

scenarios.

The cross-sectional analysis portion of the

structural design included analyzing the largest cross-

section of the canoe for different properties. The first

value calculated was the centroid of the cross-section.

This was done by creating a transformed cross-section

that included 22 small rectangles placed in a pattern

that closely resembled the cross-section. Then using

the individual areas of the rectangles along with their

distances from the bottom of the canoe, the centroid of

the cross-section was found to be 7.1 inches from the

bottom of the canoe. Then using the parallel axis

theorem, the moment of inertia was calculated and

found to be 819.76 in

The data found from the cross-sectional

analysis was then used to determine the internal

stresses within the section, along with the cracking

moment of the concrete. The compressive and tensile

stresses were calculated using the maximum bending

moment, the centroid of the cross-section, and the

moment of inertia. The calculated compressive

stresses for the two-person and four-person loadings

were 72.5 psi and 135 psi, respectively. The calculated

tensile stresses for the two-person and four-person

loadings were 47 psi and 88 psi, respectively. The

cracking moment represents the bending moment at

which cracking in the concrete begins to occur. The

cracking moment was calculated using the centroid,

the moment of inertia, and the modulus of rupture of

the concrete. The modulus of rupture was found using

the testing methods from ASTM C78 for flexural

strength of concrete [2]. The testing resulted in a

modulus of rupture of approximately 267 psi. This

value used along with the centroid and moment of

inertia, resulted in a cracking moment of 2569 lb-ft.

This value was calculated using the equation in

ACI318-19 provision 24.2.3.5 [3]. These values show

that the concrete should not be cracking based on the

maximum moment endured from the required

loadings.

The final step in the structural design was to

determine the ultimate bending moment of the canoe.

This value was calculated following the process in the

ACI318-19 concrete code provision 21.2.2 [3]. This

ultimate bending moment represents the flexural

capacity of the canoe. The calculations were

performed using the tension force in the mesh

reinforcement to determine the depth to neutral axis.

Then the ultimate bending moment was calculated to

be 1236.17 lb-ft. This value is larger than the

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

6 | P a g e

calculated max moment for the canoe which means the

canoe should not fail due to the flexural strength.

All calculations explained above can be seen in

Appendix D. Table 4-1 below shows a summary of the

values calculated.

Table34-1: Summary of Structural Calculation Values

Summary of Structural Calculation Values

Description Value Units

Self

Weight

14.82

lb/ft

Buoyancy Force

64.89

lb/ft

Maximum

Bending Moment

846

Moment of Inertia

819.76

Person Compressive Stress

72.5

psi

Person Compressive Stress

135

psi

Person Tensile Stress

psi

Person Tensile Stress

psi

Cracking Moment

2569

Ultimate Bending Moment

1236.17

4.3 Mix Design

The goal for Ponderosa’s mix design is to

create a durable concrete mixture that is simple,

utilizes locally and commercially available material,

environmentally friendly, and can be used as shotcrete.

Creating a lighter concrete mixture was not a primary

goal for this year’s design, rather a tiebreaker between

mixture decisions, as the hull design would be the

primary method of reaching the required buoyancy to

keep the canoe afloat.

Durability may be defined as creating concrete

with enough strength to meet the requirements

determined from structural calculations to withstand

racing, travel, and reduce permeability.

Utelite, an expanded shale, will be used to

satisfy the ASTM C330 compliancy requirements set

forth by the Committee on the Concrete Canoe

Competition (C4). It was stated that at least 50% of the

volume of all aggregates must be C330 compliant [1].

Utelite was chosen for this specification because of its

lower specific gravity compared to other C330

compliant aggregates, such as pumice and lightweight

sand. The material is also produced in Utah, a close

neighbor to Arizona. Furthermore, Utelite is provided

in multiple gradations which helped the team test

aggregate interlock strength without having to crush

and clean the material. The final mix chosen will use

Utelite crushed fines and Utelite #10 mesh [4]. Utelite

crushed fines is a well-graded fine aggregate, while the

#10 mesh is a fine sand. Its higher density and strength

will serve to provide most of the aggregate strength.

Three other aggregates were considered for the

remaining aggregate volume: expanded perlite,

polystyrene foam, and Ultra-lightweight Foamed

Glass Aggregate (UL-FGA). The polystyrene foam

did not meet the team’s sustainability requirements

and could not be locally sourced, and thus was never

tested. Multiple tests were conducted on the UL-FGA

and perlite to determine which would better suit the

team’s goal.

UL-FGA was procured from

AeroAggregates®, a small company in the state of

Pennsylvania. These aggregates are produced from

100% recycled glass and are listed as having a highly

frictional surface, low unit weight, inertness, high

permeability, and insulating properties [5]. It had a

higher strength than the other aggregates and worked

well when graded as a sand. It was previously used in

NAU’s Agassiz and increased the performance of their

canoe. Originally, the team was going to include this

aggregate in the mix, but because it is not locally

available it did not meet the team’s requirements.

Perlite is an amorphous volcanic glass that has

a relatively high-water content, is formed by the

hydration of obsidian, and is naturally occurring [6].

When expanded, it is generally used in horticulture to

trap moisture for plants and provide a lightweight

alternative to heavy potting soils. In construction and

engineering, perlite is used as an ASTM C332

compliant aggregate for insulating concrete but is not

ASTM C330 compliant [6] [7] [8]. Perlite was

procured by the team from Therm-O-Rock West, Inc.,

a company based and operated in Arizona. It is graded

so that it produces a fine sand with larger circular

particles so that it works well with shotcrete

application. Perlite is also an ultra-lightweight

material and is approximately 30% lighter than UL-

FGA. Thus, perlite was chosen to be the only other

aggregate in conjunction with Utelite due to its low

weight, availability, and environmentally friendly

properties.

Both the Utelite and Perlite are graded to the

specification of lightweight aggregate per the C4’s

request that all aggregates are ASTM C125 compliant

[1] [9]. See Table 4-2 for more information regarding

the physical properties of the aggregates, and

Appendix C for gradation reports verifying ASTM

C125 compliancy.

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

7 | P a g e

Table44-2 Physical Properties of Aggregates

Aggregate

Specific

Gravity

Absorption

(%)

Particle

Size

Utelite

Crushed Fines

1.55 18 #4 - #100

Utelite 10

Mesh

1.55 18 #8 - #200

Expanded

Perlite

0.27 170 #6 - pan

The cementitious materials that were

considered are EkkoMAXX

cement, densified silica

fume, class C fly ash, and class F fly ash. These

alternative cementitious materials were considered to

help reduce the weight of the concrete as well as add

strength, improving sustainability, and decrease

permeability.

EkkoMAXX

is a carbon neutral cement

technology which utilizes a non-portland, activated fly

ash system [10]. This activated fly ash system is

designed to fully replace Portland cement.

EkkoMAXX

was used by NAU’s concrete canoe

team in 2015 to build Dreadnoughtus [11].

Unfortunately, the team could not find any

EkkoMAXX

cement that is commercially and

locally available so it will not be used in the mix

design this year.

Densified silica fume is a pozzolan, produced

by treating non densified silica fume, a by-product

from the production of ferrosilicon alloys, to make it

more conducive to uniform mixing and improving the

comprehensive performance of concrete [12] [13].

Silica fume generally helps reduce the permeability of

concrete by creating a glue that binds the cement

particles together and fills in void spaces [14]. This

material was found to be locally and commercially

available in Arizona from the Salt River Materials

Group (SRMG), but after testing was done it was not

found to have dramatically different affects than its

more common, cheaper, and more fluid counterpart,

fly ash [13]. Also, because one of the goals of the team

this year is to explore a shotcrete application method,

silica fume was found to be difficult to use within the

shotcrete mix. Table 4-2 identifies the concrete

mixtures that were crucial to design decisions.

Class F fly ash is a pozzolan, as designated in

ASTM C618, and originates from the burning of

anthracite and bituminous coals [15]. Class F fly ash

can replace about 25% of Portland cement by mass and

is 45% cheaper on average. It also has a lighter weight,

with a specific gravity around 1.9 to 2.3 depending on

where it’s sourced [16]. Since fly ash comes in the

form of small spheres, it utilizes the so-called “ball-

bearing effect” and acts like a lubricant which is good

for shotcrete mixes. Due to its recyclable nature, class

F fly ash fits the team’s criteria of being

environmentally friendly. Since Arizona currently has

four coal-fired power plants and three coal-fired

cement plants, it is locally and commercially available,

and is procured by SRMG [17] [18]. The final mix

design will utilize class F fly ash to replace the 20% of

the Portland cement by mass.

Class C fly ash is designated in ASTM C 618

and originates from subbituminous and lignite coals.

Class C fly ash can be used to replace up to 35% of the

Portland cement by mass and is 65% cheaper on

average [19]. It also provides a multitude of benefits,

such as decreased permeability and water demand

[16]. Much like class F fly ash it has small spherical

particles which are good for shotcrete mixes. Since

class C is heavier than class F, less material is needed.

Conveniently, SRMG provides a blend of 80/20 class

F/class C fly ash therefore 5% of the class C will

replace the Portland cement.

Portland cement will need to be used in the

final mixture as the primary reactant. The team is using

Type I/II/V cement procured locally from SRMG.

Type I/II/V cement is a mixture of general-purpose,

sulfate-resistant, and low heat-of-hydration cement

[22]. Although these properties are not the most

appropriate for a concrete canoe, the Type I/II/V

cement is the most readily available Portland cement

for the team and provides adequate test results.

In order to achieve proper constructability and

strength, admixtures will be heavily relied on. Many

admixtures were considered and tested:

MasterGlenium® 7500, a high-range water-reducer;

MasterSet® DELVO, a hydration controlling

admixture; MasterLife® SRA 35, a shrinkage

reducing admixture; MasterAir® AE 90, an air-

entraining admixture; and MasterMatrix® VMA 362,

a viscosity modifying admixture. All of the tested

admixtures were procured from the BASF

Corporation’s Arizona Admixture Department.

The final design will utilize a mix of

MasterGlenium® 7500, MasterSet® DELVO,

MasterLife® SRA-35, and MasterMatrix® VMA 362

admixtures.

MasterGlenium® 7500 provides the team with

the ability to reduce the water-to-cement-ratio for

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

8 | P a g e

concrete strength, and to enhance concrete workability

for shotcrete application. MasterGlenium® 7500

admixture meets ASTM C494 compliance

requirements [21]. MasterSet® DELVO will retard the

setting time of the concrete by controlling the

hydration of Portland cement [22]. The MasterSet®

DELVO admixture meets ASTM C494 requirements

[22]. MasterSet® DELVO allows the team to have

ample time to shoot the concrete and apply finishing

techniques before it hardens. MasterLife® SRA 35

will reduce the drying shrinkage of concrete and

subsequent cracking. MasterLife® SRA 35 admixture

meets ASTM C494 requirements [23]. MasterLife®

will help reduce micro-cracking that would ultimately

allow water into the canoe during the races and

compromise the overall strength. MasterMatrix®

VMA 362 admixture meets ASTM C494 requirements

[24]. MasterMatrix® VMA 362 is used to produce

concrete with enhanced viscosity and controlled

rheological properties. Due the final mix having a high

slump and being “soupy,” the team used this

admixture to provide cohesion when being applied. It

also makes the concrete “stickier” so it will better

adhere to the mold instead of bouncing off or slumping

down the mold. The admixture is also a solution to

other concerns about the final mix; primarily the

tendency for a high slump mix to segregate or bleed.

The only considered admixture that will not be

used is MasterAir® AE 90. Air-entertainers are

generally used in concrete that is exposed to cyclic

freezing and thawing [25]. Originally, the team wanted

to use an air entertainer to develop a lighter concrete

mixture. However, testing showed that the weight of

the concrete did not significantly change due to the air

entertainer, nor did it make the mixture more

workable. See Table 4-2 for more information.

Both a primary and secondary reinforcement

was chosen for the final mix. The primary

reinforcement will be a basalt mesh. The secondary

reinforcement that will be used are PVA-15 8mm

reinforcing fibers that will be evenly dispersed

throughout the concrete mixture.

The basalt mesh will provide the concrete with

flexural, tensile, and shear strength to the overall

composite design of the canoe.

PVA (Polyvinyl Alcohol) fibers are an ultra-

high-performance fiber for concrete. PVA fibers can

create a fully engaged molecular bond with concrete

that is 300% greater than other fibers [26]. PVA fibers

reduce plastic shrinkage and meet the requirements in

ASTM C1116 [27]. While the team chose

MasterLife® to primarily control dry shrinkage and

cracking, the PVA fibers will be able to assist with

reducing plastic cracking. Multiple fiber sizes were

considered, but the team found that 8mm is optimum

for shotcrete because of its small length and ability to

get through the shotcrete gun nozzle.

This year, Ponderosa will see multiple new

innovative features. The first being the application of

the concrete on the mold via shotcrete. The team has

thoroughly tested numerous concrete mixtures to

examine each mixtures ability to be a shotcrete mix by

applying each onto low-density Styrofoam. A desired

slump of 8 to 9-in was identified through these tests

[28]. Shotcrete was last used at NAU on

Dreadnoughtus in 2015. Dreadnoughtus relied upon

the spherical and rheological properties of both its

EkkoMAXX

cement and manufactured

microspheres to better its ability to be used in shotcrete

[11]. In an effort to recreate these results, the team

incorporated a more spherical gradation of perlite

along with MasterMatrix® VMA 362.

The second innovative feature will be that of

expanded perlite. No NAU teams have used expanded

perlite in the past so it was a relatively new material

this year. Perlite is a sustainable alternative to other

permitted lightweight materials such as Styrofoam

because it is naturally occurring. It is also locally

available, and mass produced in Arizona.

A total of 13 mixes were developed and tested

in order to determine the optimum use of the selected

materials for various ASTM industry standard tests.

Two main tests performed were the compression

testing and splitting tensile testing which were

performed following ASTM C39 and ASTM C496,

respectively [29] [30]. The mixes were developed

while changing specific proportions one at a time

while holding the other constituents constant. Since

some of the material used to develop Agassiz were also

used this year, some of last year’s tests will be

referenced to validate certain proportion choices. This

year’s mix design also relied heavily upon theoretical

assumptions about the material selected. Not every

material and its proportions were selected based on

single-variable tests; but rather, input from the

supplier, peer-reviewed essays, published books,

material data sheets, and previous experience from

team members and technical advisors.

When utilizing fly ash as a partial substitute for

Portland cement, the supplier, and ACI 318-19,

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

9 | P a g e

recommended that it replaced no more than 25% of the

Portland cement by mass [3]. Since fly ash is lighter

and cheaper than Portland cement, this 25%

proportion was fixed, and different proportions were

not tested. Similarly, when silica fume was tested in

place of the fly ash, it was also fixed at a 25%

proportion, as recommended by the supplier. The

strength of both mixtures varied slightly, with silica

fume having a strength about 150 psi greater than that

of fly ash. The greatest difference in these mixtures

was that of its ability to be used in a shotcrete mixture.

Silica fume proved to be too difficult to reach the

desired slump for shotcrete without causing

segregation as it requires more water than other

cementitious materials. Both class F and C fly ash

required less water to reach the desired slump,

although it did have a slight segregation issue, which

was fixed with the addition of MasterMatrix® VMA

362 in a later mix.

VMA 362 was also tested for its performance

in a shotcrete mixture. It was found that it performs

best when proportioned at 6 fl. oz/cwt, as suggested by

the supplier. At higher concentrations it was observed

to “ruin” the mix by making it too cohesive and

unworkable after sitting for more than a few minutes,

requiring it to be re-stirred. At lower concentrations,

workability was observed to have no improvement.

All other admixtures were kept at a constant

proportion that was recommended by the supplier.

MasterGlenium® 7500 was kept constant at around 10

fl. oz/cwt. MasterSet® DELVO was used at 5 fl.

oz/cwt. MasterLife® SRA 35 was used at 5 fl. oz/cwt.

Air entertainer was also tested for its effects on

the weight of the concrete. The strength of the canoe

increased by almost 1000 psi when air-entertainer was

removed, but also caused the weight of the concrete to

go up by roughly 5 lb/ft

. The positive effects air-

entertainer had on the concrete was not justifiable

enough to keep it in the mix.

The water-to-cement ratio (w/cm) was kept

constant at 0.4. This characteristic mostly affects the

strength of the concrete, and since strength wasn’t one

of the main goals of the mix design it never changed

and provided adequate water for a high slump. With

the requirement of having 50% of aggregate volume

be C330 compliant, all mixes reached a strength above

1500 psi.

The largest modifications in the mixes

occurred between Mix #9 and Mix #10. The mass of

cementitious materials was increased by 200 lbs (per

cubic yard). This did three things: it increased the

strength of the concrete by about 1000 psi, made a

more pleasing and smooth finish, and visibly helped

with the shotcrete mixture.

All mixes used an even blend of Utelite

crushed fines and Utelite 10 mesh. Tests done in the

previous year show that well-graded Utelite produces

the strongest concrete and most uniform mix [31].

See Table 4-3 for a summary of applicable

concrete mixtures.

The performance of shotcrete was evaluated on

a scale from “poor” to “excellent”. The three criteria

that are to be evaluated for each mix are:

(1) Can it flow through the shotcrete gun in a

large enough quantity to form a layer of

concrete quickly enough for construction?

(2) Is it cohesive enough to stick to the

concrete form without excessive particle

rebound?

(3) Does it slump on the form after placement?

Table 4-4 illustrates how these criteria will be

evaluated and scored.

Table54-3 Applicable Concrete Mixes

Mix ID

Number

Variable of

interest

Comp.

Strength

28 day

(psi)

Wet

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Shotcrete

Performance

Ponderosa

Mix #4

Silica

Fume @

25%

2100 105 Bad

Ponderosa

Mix #5

Class F fly

ash @ 25%

1950 103 Poor

Ponderosa

Mix #8

80/20 ash

blend

@25%

2700 110 Good

Ponderosa

Mix #9

Inclusion

of VMA

2700 110 Excellent

Ponderosa

Mix #10

+200lbs

cement

3150 110 Excellent

Ponderosa

Mix #11

Air

entertainer

included

3150 102 Excellent

Ponderosa

Mix #12

No air-

entertainer

4250 107 Excellent

Agassiz

Mix #9

[30]

Crushed

fines

included

(well-

graded)

2460 63 N/A

Agassiz

Mix #10

[30]

No crushed

fines

1720 62.9 N/A

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

10 | P a g e

Table64-4 Mix Design Rubric

Score Criteria

Excellent

Satisfies all three

Good

Satisfies criteria (1) and

one other

Poor

Satisfies criteria (1) only

Bad

Satisfies none of the

criteria; “un

shootable”

The final mix chosen was Mix #13. Ultimately,

each mix was an improvement upon the last and since

Mix #13 was the last mix, it was the most refined

towards the team’s goals.

4.4 Proposed Construction Process

The team put together a proposed construction

process for the canoe during the second year of the

schedule. The mold will be designed using the Solid

Works file that was created for the hull design and will

then be outsourced for fabrication. There the mold will

be constructed using a Computer Numeric Control

(CNC) machine which allows for accurate cutting and

shaping. The final design of the mold will utilize low

density EPS foam blocks, which provides an economic

material and allows for ideal shaping and

constructability. A foam mold was chosen over a wood

mold because there is more control over the final shape

of the canoe. The mold will be cut into smaller sections

to allow for easier transportation. Once received the

team will glue the pieces together and then sand the

form to the correct hull shape. A male mold was

chosen for this year’s canoe because the team plans to

use shotcrete as the application method. A male mold

will allow for the best access for the shotcrete gun to

apply even layers throughout the length of the canoe.

The foam mold will be put together on a sturdy

construction table that was built by previous NAU

teams to increase the sustainability of the construction

process and eliminate the need for a new wood table

to be built. Using a construction table for the pouring

process allows for more precise concrete application.

A liquidized rubber will then be applied to the mold to

separate the foam from the releasing agent. The team

decided that Vaseline® would be used as the releasing

agent as it is cost effective and readily available. It has

also proven itself to be an adequate releasing agent in

previous years.

Since only one mix is allowed per this year’s

RFP, the team decided to do a 3-level layering scheme

with no differentiation between the concrete in each

layer. This layering scheme has been used by past

teams and has provided adequate strength for both the

races and transportation [31]. Because of the male

mold, the first layer applied will be the inside layer of

the canoe. The goal thickness of this layer will be

1/8

”

which will be checked by the Quality Control lead

as the concrete is applied. The mesh reinforcement for

the walls of the canoe will be added onto this layer.

This mesh will be pre-cut into approximately 6 3-foot

strips that overlap approximately 2” at each

connection in an effort to increase the constructability

of applying the mesh. Once the mesh is adequately

placed, the second layer of shotcrete will be applied.

This layer will also be 1/8” and will be checked once

again by the Quality Control lead. Following this

layer, a 6” wide piece of mesh that spans the length of

the canoe will be placed on the spine (top of the male

mold) to provide extra reinforcement. Finally, the

outside layer will be applied with a thickness of 1/4”.

The thickness check for the first 2 layers of shotcrete

will be completed using toothpicks that are pre-

marked with 1/8”. The thickness of the final layer will

be checked using pre-made wood frames cut the shape

of the canoe. These wood frames will be constructed

prior to pour day and they can be placed on top of the

mold to show exactly a 1/2” thickness at various

locations along the length of the canoe.

On pour day, the team will assign jobs at

different stations so that for consistency, each person

will do their specific job the entire time. First, there

will be people that are designated concrete mixers. The

mix materials such as cementitious materials,

aggregates, admixtures, and fibers will be

proportioned prior to the day of. This way, the mix

design lead can seamlessly make the correct amount of

concrete to minimize waste while ensuring proper

construction. A concrete drum mixer will combine the

aggregates together with water and allow that to sit to

reach proper saturated surface dry (SSD) conditions.

Then cement, hydration water, and admixtures will be

mixed in. From there, the prepared fibers will be added

and mixed in. Then, while the concrete is sitting

waiting to be used in the shotcrete gun, a power drill

with a paddle blade will be used to remix the concrete

every 10 to 15 minutes. This is done because the

viscosity modifying admixture will cause the concrete

to lose slump [24]. The next job that will be assigned

is a designated concrete applicator. This person will be

in charge of applying the shotcrete at the correct depth

for the pre-determined layering scheme. This person

will check in with the concrete mixers to ensure that

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

11 | P a g e

there is enough concrete being made for the pace of

application. There will then be 2 to 3 people that are

responsible for troweling the concrete once it is

applied with the shotcrete gun. These people will

ensure the surfaces of the canoe are smooth and will

also be responsible for applying the mesh

reinforcement to follow the layering scheme. Once the

final layer of concrete is applied, everyone will work

to trowel the final layer and check the final thickness

using the pre-constructed wood frames. The reason for

the specific job assignments is (1) to teach each team

member only one job that they can work to perfect

prior to pour day and (2) to minimize the amount of

people necessary on pour day with the idea that

COVID restrictions could still be in place.

To complete pour day, the curing chamber will

be constructed around the canoe using PVC pipes and

plastic sheeting. The curing chamber will be

constructed right on the construction table so that the

freshly poured canoe does not need to be moved.

Multiple humidifiers will be used to keep the humidity

in the chamber above 95% for the first 14 days, then

team will remove the curing chamber and flip the

canoe over. The mold will then be fully removed from

the canoe. Then on each end of the mold, 1.5 ft of foam

will be cut precisely and then trimmed. These foam

sections will act as the bulk heads. Once placed in the

desired locations, concrete will be applied at the

design thickness of 0.5 in to secure the bulkheads.

Once the bulk heads are covered, the canoe will be left

to cure in a humid room for 14 more days. The

humidity within the room will be monitored and

decreased as the curing timeline comes to an end.

Following curing, the canoe will be sanded on both the

inside and outside. The first layer of sealant will be

applied along with the stickers denoting “Northern

Arizona University” and “Ponderosa”. This will be

allowed to dry until the final coat of sealant is applied,

finalizing the construction of Ponderosa.

4.5 Scope, Schedule, and Fee

The team’s project management scheme is as

follows: the team’s Project Manager (PM) and Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Lead oversee all

the work being completed while managing the

deliverables to ensure deadlines are met. They are also

available to assist any of the other leads when

necessary. The other three leads: Mix Design,

Structural Design, and Hull Design are each in charge

of their corresponding design process. The PM works

closely with these leads to ensure the schedule is being

followed and the finances are within reason. The

QA/QC works with these leads to ensure all work

being done meets the rules and regulations while

following sufficient methods.

To begin constructing a schedule that covered

the entirety of the project, the team worked together to

put together an all-inclusive scope. Due to the fact that

COVID has prevented an in-person format for the

regional competition, and thus pushing the schedule to

a 2-year event with design being in the first year and

construction being in the second, the team allowed for

more time to perform concrete mixes and tests than in

previous years. The team considered the risk that any

student could be greatly affected by COVID

throughout the course of the project, so the schedule

was built with flexibility to minimize the risk of falling

behind schedule. Work breaks were also built in for

winter holidays and the summertime between the 2021

society-wide competition and the start of construction.

The Project Manager and QA/QC lead worked

closely with each of the technical design leads to

ensure enough time was allocated for their scope of

work. The order of work was also analyzed and edited

so that there is the least risk of one technical design

aspect negatively affecting the schedule of another.

The anticipated major tasks or milestones for the

project were decided in the following order: Mix

Design, Hull Design, Structural Design, Conference,

Society-wide Competition, Construction, and Final

Pour. Although normally, the construction takes place

prior to the competition for that year, this year is all

but normal. These anticipated milestones are broken

down into sub-tasks to allow the team to complete

smaller tasks that ultimately end up completing the

larger.

The critical path of the schedule begins with

mix design testing, the conference itself, and continues

through the construction process (including both

construction and final pour). These items were

considered for the critical path because their timing is

crucial for the project to remain on schedule. The team

recognizes that mix design testing poses a high risk for

schedule delay because of the curing periods necessary

between pouring and testing in order to receive

conclusive test results. The conference deliverables

are also critical because they have a strict deadline and

must be completed for the project to be successful.

Finally, the construction process itself is critical

because it is the conclusion of all of the work

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

12 | P a g e

completed for design. For the full schedule, refer to

Section 6: Project Schedule.

Once the scope and schedule were sufficient,

the PM and QA/QC leads worked with each design

lead to develop a detailed fee prediction for the

entirety of the project. The Labor Costs section is

based off predicted total hours over the two-year

period for all work including project management, hull

design, structural analysis, mix design development,

mold and canoe construction, and deliverable

preparation are included. A graphical representation of

the breakdown of predicted hours can be seen below

in Figure 1.

The Expenses section summarizes the

materials necessary to construct one full-size canoe

including a lump-sum for the mold construction.

Finally, the Shipping section includes a prediction of

shipping costs to transport the canoe from Northern

Arizona University’s campus to the University of

Wisconsin-Platteville. The canoe will be transported

using a U-Haul® 26’ truck rental. Refer to Appendix

F: Detailed Fee Estimate for the full table.

4.6 Quality Control and Quality Assurance

Two focus areas for Ponderosa are to develop a

simplified shotcrete mix and maximize the project’s

sustainability. To ensure these areas are successfully met

and the project follows the correct guidelines and

procedures, a Quality Control/Quality Assurance plan

was created. This plan is designed to help mitigate risks

and ensure the project is on task with the stated goals.

The core of this plan is to ensure adequate

communication is performed throughout the duration of

the project. Weekly team meetings are held to ensure all

team members are on the same page and are aware of the

procedures and risks that accompany these procedures.

To verify that the materials used in the mix design are

compliant with the information provided in the RFP,

weekly meetings were conducted with the lead mix

designer. Because a goal of this year’s project is to

emphasize sustainability, this year’s team worked to

obtain locally sourced materials. Comparisons were

made with other suppliers to find the most cost-efficient

option.

When developing the project’s scope and

schedule, risks were evaluated to limit possible injuries

and project delays. Once identified, a plan is then created

to mitigate the risks. Currently, the issue that poses the

greatest risk to the project is COVID. Although this is

an unprecedented risk, the team developed a plan to

mitigate any major setbacks that COVID could cause. A

detailed safety plan will be in place throughout the

duration of the project and will be updated according to

CDC standards for COVID prevention. Not only will the

team follow the proper ASTM guidelines for each test

but will mitigate the risks of COVID by following

recommended CDC guidelines.

To simplify the mix design, testing is planned to

be performed weekly to ensure the project is on task and

data is constantly being recorded. Comparisons between

test results will be conducted to understand and develop

a simplified shotcrete mix. Lab testing will be conducted

following both the ASTM and NAU lab safety

guidelines and procedures. Construction methods will

be tested to determine a desirable reinforcement, layer

thickness, releasing agent and sealing method. The

reinforcement and the layer thickness will be tested by

building multiple 6”x16”x1/2” molds for what will

essentially be a concrete slab. This will allow for the

team to practice applying a desired layer thickness using

the shotcrete mix and as well as determining the

reinforcement.

To check the layer thickness a toothpick with

accurate dimensional markings will be used to ensure

the desired layer thickness of 1/8” for the first two layers

is achieved. The pre-constructed wood frames discussed

in the previous section will be used the check the total

thickness of the final product. This small diameter

measuring device will be used to limit the displacement

of the concrete as the curing process begins. Releasing

agents will be tested against small foam section.

Ponderosa team decided a foam mold will be

used because of previous NAU team’s success. Previous

testing has proven that foam molds are inexpensive and

easier to acquire through sub-contractors. To stay in

compliance with the team’s goal of sustainability,

Project

Management,

150 Hours

Mix Design,

244 Hours

Hull Design,

81 Hours

Structural Design,

123 Hours

Mold & Canoe

Construction,

333 Hours

Conference

Deliverables,

172 Hours

DISTRIBUTION OF PREDICTED HOURS

Figure

Distribution of Predicted Hours

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

13 | P a g e

household items will be tested against a commercial

releasing agent. The three agents that will be tested are

Vaseline

, mineral oil, and a commercial releasing

agent. The final construction method to be tested is the

application of the sealant using last year’s unfinished

canoe. This year’s team will test the application with

paint brushes, paint rollers, and a construction sponge.

To test the curing process of the sealant, the samples will

be placed both in the sun and shade. This test is to

determine effects of the sun during the curing process.

To ensure the NAU concrete canoe programmed

is sustained in coming years, mentee involvement is key

during the times of testing and construction. The five

team members will work with the mentees to instruct

and develop their knowledge of building and designing

a concrete canoe. Online platforms have been utilized to

help improve communication between this year’s team

and the current mentees while minimizing the spread of

COVID.

4.7 Sustainability

The team first addressed sustainability within

their mix design through researching locally sourced

materials. Acquisition and implementation of locally

sourced materials not only cuts down shipping and

material acquisition efforts but also supports the local

Arizona economy. Approximately 72 percent of the

final mix design by volume were locally sourced in

Arizona. One of the two aggregates used in the final

mix, Perlite, is not only found in Arizona but also is

Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the US

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [32]. This

means that any Perlite that may end up in a natural

source such as soil or water from the testing and

construction of Ponderosa, is not a threat to the natural

life supported through it. Fly ash is another material

used within the final mix design that promotes

sustainability. Fly ash is a byproduct of coal

combustion that is lighter than cement but does not

decrease the overall strength of the concrete. By

including byproducts such as fly ash, Ponderosa is

reusing materials that are already being produced and

may otherwise end up in a landfill. Utilizing

byproducts also decreases overall costs because less

cement production is necessary for the construction of

the canoe.

Another focus of sustainability for this year’s

project was mentee inclusion. By educating and

training the mentees, this year’s team promotes the

sustainability of the future of the canoe program here

at NAU. The money raised through fundraising by the

Ponderosa team was invested back into the program

through construction and mix design testing

equipment. By providing future NAU teams with

proper construction and testing equipment, the money

raised by future teams can then be invested in research

and advancing the technology of the NAU canoe

program.

4.8 Health & Safety / Impact of COVID

Northern Arizona University's College of

Engineering holds the safety of their students as their

main priority when working with possible hazardous

material, tools that could harm the user, and COVID.

This year's concrete canoe team developed a safety

binder with a compiled list of materials and tools that

could affect the team's health or safety. A list of

contacts is provided in the binder in case an incident

were to occur, so that the team knows who to contact

to handle any situation whether it be exposure to a

hazardous chemical or a medical emergency. Faculty

and team captains held scheduled meetings to ensure

that each revision would identify all hazards

associated with this project and how to address them.

A safety waiver will be signed by each mentee

before accepting their assistance. During material

testing, all equipment and tools that are to be used, as

outlined in the safety binder, will be inspected to

ensure all guards are in place and, if applicable, all

power cords have no frays or damage. All required

personal protective equipment was identified and

acquired before the testing started.

Due to the effects of COVID, this year’s team

will have to take a more cautious approach during

construction and testing. To ensure the safety of each

team member and mentee, a health check will be

conducted before in-person meetings are held. This

check includes a personal evaluation and temperature

check to possibly identify any COVID symptoms. If

any one of the symptoms are identified, then the

student will be asked to stay home and quarantine. All

meetings that can be held virtually, have been and will

continue to be held virtually. Although in-person

gatherings are unavoidable for construction methods

testing and mix design, a maximum of 10 people is

enforced. During the meetings, masks are required

both indoors and outdoors. This is done to limit any

possible exposure between students. As a team, these

processes will be enforced strictly.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

14 | P a g e

5.0 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS

15 | P a g e

6.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

16 | P a g e

6.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

17 | P a g e

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES

[1] Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions, 2021 Request for Proposals. American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE), 2021.

[2] ASTM Standard C78, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with

Third-Point Loading)”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, DOI: 10.1520/C078,

www.astm.org

[3] ACI 318-19: Building code requirements for structural concrete: ccommentary on building code

requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318R-19). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute,

2019.

[4] “Utelite ES Standard Grades,” Utelite Corporation. [Online]. Available:

https://www.utelite.com/products/es-structural/.

[5] “UL-FGA,” AeroAggregates. [Online]. Available: https://aeroaggregates.com/about-ulfga.

[6] “A Worldwide Association of Perlite Professionals,” Perlite Institute, 04-Dec-2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.perlite.org/.

[7] ASTM Standard C330, “Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete”,

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, DOI: 10.1520/C0330, www.astm.org

[8] ASTM Standard C332, “Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Insulating Concrete”,

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, DOI: 10.1520/C0332-17, www.astm.org

[9] ASTM Standard C125, “Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates”, ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2020, DOI: 10.1520/C0125-20, www.astm.org

[10] “Ekkomaxx,” Global Cement. [Online]. Available:

https://www.globalcement.com/news/itemlist/tag/Ekkomaxx.

[11] Northern Arizona University. (2015). Dreadnoughtus. NCCC Design Paper. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona

University.

[12] ASTM Standard C618, “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan

for Use in Concrete”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019, DOI: 10.1520/C0618-19,

www.astm.org

[13] “What is densified silica fume?” Silica Fume for Sale, Microsilica Supplier in China, 16-Mar-2018.

[Online]. Available: http://www.microsilica-fume.com/densified-silica-fume.html.

[14] “FORCE 10,000® D: GCP Applied Technologies,” Resource | GCP Applied Technologies. [Online].

Available: https://gcpat.com/en/solutions/products/force-10000-d.

[15] Class F Fly Ash. [Online]. Available:

https://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/courses/ce584/concrete/library/materials/Altmaterials/Class%20F%20Fly

%20Ash.htm.

[16] “Salt River Materials Group,” Phoenix cement. [Online]. Available: https://www.srmaterials.com/.

[17] “List of power stations in Arizona,” Wikipedia, 10-Jan-2021. [Online]. Available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Arizona.

[18] PCA America’s Cement Manufacturers

Arizona Cement Industry, Portland Cement Association, 2016,

www.cement.org

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

18 | P a g e

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES

[19] Class C Fly Ash. [Online]. Available:

https://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/courses/ce584/concrete/library/materials/Altmaterials/Class%20C%20Fly

%20Ash.htm.

[20] S. H. Kosmatka and M. L. Wilson, Design and control of concrete mixtures. Skokie, IL: PCA, 2018.

[21] Master Builders Solutions, “MasterGlenium® 7500: Full-range water-reducing admixture”, Technical Data

Sheet DAT-0231, June 2018.

[22] Master Builders Solutions, “MasterSet® DELVO: Hydration Controlling Admixture”, Technical Data

Sheet DAT-0021, July 2018.

[23] Master Builders Solutions, “MasterLife® SRA 035: Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture”, Technical Data

Sheet DAT-1129, June 2018.

[24] Master Builders Solutions, “MasterMatrix® VMA 362: Viscosity-Modifying Admixture”, Technical Data

Sheet DAT-0026, Oct 2019.

[25] Master Builders Solutions, “MasterAir® AE 90: Air Entraining Mixture”, Technical Data Sheet DAT-

0013, June 2018.

[26] “PVA-15 Fibers, 1/3’(8mm) long-5lb bag - Fishstone - Concrete Countertop Supplies,” Fishstone Studio,

Inc. [Online]. Available: https://concretecountertopsupply.com/Item/PVA5.

[27] ASTM Standard C1116, “Standard Test Method for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete”, ASTM International,

West Conshohocken, PA, 2015, DOI: 10.1520/C1116_C1116M-10AR15, www.astm.org

[28] ASTM Standard C1611, “Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-Consolidating Concrete”, ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, DOI: 10.1520/C1611M-18, www.astm.org

[29] ASTM Standard C39, “Standard Specification for Compression Testing”,

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, DOI: 10.1520/C039, www.astm.org

[30] ASTM Standard C496, “Standard Specification for Splitting Tensile Testing”,

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, DOI: 10.1520/C0496, www.astm.org

[31] Northern Arizona University. (2020). Agassiz. NCCC Design Paper. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona

University.

[32] L. D. Maxim, R. Niebo, and E. E. McConnell, “Perlite toxicology and epidemiology--a review,” Inhalation

toxicology, Apr-2014. [Online].

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

19 | P a g e

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS and PRIMARY MIXTURE CALCULATIONS

EMENTITIOUS

ATERIALS

Component

Specific

Gravity

Volume Amount of CM

Type I/II/V Cement

3.15 3.05 ft

600.0 lb/yd

Total cm (includes c)

800 lb/yd

c/cm ratio, by mass

0.33

Fly Ash, Class F

2.25 1.14 ft

160.0 lb/yd

Fly Ash, Class C

2.64 0.24 ft

40.0 lb/yd

IBERS

Component

Specific

Gravity

Volume Amount of Fibers

PVA RECS15, 8mm

1.31 0.012 ft

1.0 lb/yd

Total Amount of Fibers

lb/yd

GGREGATES

Aggregates

Abs (%) SG

SSD

Base Quantity, W

Volume,

agg, SSD

SSD

Utelite Crushed Fines

18.0 % 1.55 1.83 372.0 lb/yd

438.9 lb/yd

3.85 ft

Utelite 10mesh

18.0 % 1.55

1.83 372.0 lb/yd

438.9 lb/yd

3.85 ft

Expanded Perlite, no. 6 minus

170.0 % 0.27

0.73 128.0 lb/yd

345.6 lb/yd

7.60 ft

IQUID

DMIXTURES

Admixture

lb/ US gal

Dosage

(fl. oz / cwt)

% Solids Amount of Water in Admixture

High-Range Water Reducer

8.77 10.0 14 % 4.71 lb/yd

Total Water from

Liquid Admixtures, ∑w

admx

9.80 lb/yd

Set Retarder

8.92 5.0 26 % 2.06 lb/yd

Shrinkage Reducer

8.26 5.0 80 % 0.52 lb/yd

Viscosity Modifier

8.37 6.0 20 % 2.51 lb/yd

ATER

Amount Volume

Water, w,

[=∑ (w

free +

admx

+ w

batch

) ]

w/c ratio, by mass

0.4

w/cm ratio, by mass

0.4

320 lb/yd

5.13 ft

Total Free Water from All Aggregates, ∑w

free

-210.91 lb/yd

Total Water from All Admixtures, ∑w

admx

9.80 lb/yd

Batch Water, w

batch

521.11 lb/yd

ENSITIES

ONTENT

ATIOS

AND

LUMP

Values for 1 cy of concrete

cm Fibers

Aggregate

(SSD)

Solids,

total

Water, w Total

Mass, M 800 lb 1 lb 1223.52 lb 0 lb 530.91 lb 2555.4 lb

Absolute Volume, V

4.43 ft

0.012 ft

15.29 ft

0 ft

5.13 ft

24.86 ft

Theoretical Density, T, (=∑M / ∑V)

102.8 lb/ft

Air Content, Air, [= (T – D)/T x 100%] 7.9 %

Anticipated Density, D

94.65 lb/ft

Air Content, Air, [= (27 – ∑V))/27 x 100%]

7.9 %

Total Aggregate Ratio (=V

agg,SSD

/ 27)

56.63%

Slump, Slump flow, Spread (as applicable) 9 in. slump

C330 + RCA Ratio (=V

C330+RCA

/ V

agg

)

50.31%

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

20 | P a g e

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS and PRIMARY MIXTURE CALCULATIONS

CALCULATION OF PROPOSED MIXTURE PROPORTIONS

Measured Unit Weight for One Cubic Yard and

Specific Gravity of Materials

Component

Amount

lb/gal

Type I/II/V Cement

600 lb

3.15

Class F/C

blend

200 lb

2.33

Fiber

1 lb

1.31

Utelite Crushed Fines

372 lb

1.55

Utelite 10mesh

372 lb

1.55

Expanded Perlite

128 lb

0.27

Glenium 7500

10 fl oz/cwt

8.77

ELVO

5 fl oz/cwt

8.92

SRA

5 fl oz/cwt

8.26

VMA 362

6 fl oz/cwt

8.37

Batch

Water

591.41 lb

ABSOLUTE VOLUME METHOD FOR

CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS

𝑉



𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟑.𝟎𝟓 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑉

 

𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟏.𝟏𝟒 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑉

 

𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟎.𝟐𝟒 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

ABSOLUTE VOLUME METHOD FOR

AGGREGATES

Utelite Crushed Fines

𝑉



𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟑.𝟖𝟓 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑊



= 1 +

𝐴𝑏𝑠

100%

 ∗ 𝑊



= 𝟒𝟑𝟗

𝒍𝒃

𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑆𝐺



(

𝐴𝑏𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝐺



)

(

𝑆𝐺



)

= 𝟏.𝟖𝟑

𝐴𝑏𝑠 =

𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟏𝟖%

Utelite 10Mesh

𝑉



𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟑.𝟖𝟓 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑊



= 1 +

𝐴𝑏𝑠

100%

 ∗ 𝑊



= 𝟒𝟑𝟗

𝒍𝒃

𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑆𝐺



(

𝐴𝑏𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝐺



)

(

𝑆𝐺



)

= 𝟏.𝟖𝟑

𝐴𝑏𝑠 =

𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟏𝟖%

Perlite

𝑉



𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟕.𝟔𝟎 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑊



= 1 +

𝐴𝑏𝑠

100%

 ∗ 𝑊



= 𝟑𝟒𝟓.𝟔

𝒍𝒃

𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝑆𝐺



(

𝐴𝑏𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝐺



)

(

𝑆𝐺



)

= 𝟎.𝟕𝟑

𝐴𝑏𝑠 =

𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟏𝟕𝟎%

ABSOLUTE VOLUME METHOD FOR

FIBERS

𝑉



𝑀

𝑆𝐺



∗ 62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟎.𝟎𝟏𝟐 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

ABSOLUTE VOLUME METHOD FOR

ADMIXTURES

𝑐𝑤𝑡 =

𝐶𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝐹𝑙𝑦 𝐴𝑠ℎ

100 𝑙𝑏

= 𝟖.𝟎

High-Range Water Reducer

𝑤



= 10

𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

𝑐𝑤𝑡

∗

8 𝑙𝑏

𝑙𝑏

∗ 86% ∗

1 𝑔𝑎𝑙

128 𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

∗ 8.77

𝑙𝑏

𝑔𝑎𝑙

= 𝟒.𝟕𝟏 𝒍𝒃

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

21 | P a g e

APPENDIX B: MIXTURE PROPORTIONS and PRIMARY MIXTURE CALCULATIONS

Set Retarder

𝑤



= 5.0

𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

𝑐𝑤𝑡

∗

8 𝑙𝑏

𝑙𝑏

∗ 74% ∗

1 𝑔𝑎𝑙

128 𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

∗ 8.92

𝑙𝑏

𝑔𝑎𝑙

= 𝟐.𝟎𝟔 𝒍𝒃

Shrinkage Reducer

𝑤



= 5.0

𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

𝑐𝑤𝑡

∗

8 𝑙𝑏

𝑙𝑏

∗ 20% ∗

1 𝑔𝑎𝑙

128 𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

∗ 8.26

𝑙𝑏

𝑔𝑎𝑙

= 𝟎.𝟓𝟐 𝒍𝒃

Viscosity Modifier

𝑤



= 6.0

𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

𝑐𝑤𝑡

∗

8 𝑙𝑏

𝑙𝑏

∗ 80% ∗

1 𝑔𝑎𝑙

128 𝑓𝑙 𝑜𝑧

∗ 8.37

𝑙𝑏

𝑔𝑎𝑙

= 𝟐.𝟓𝟏 𝒍𝒃

WATER FROM AGGREGATES

*All aggregates are kept in OD condition in a ~0%

humidity room

Utelite Crushed Fines

𝑀𝐶



𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟎%

𝑀𝐶



= 𝑀𝐶



- 𝐴𝑏𝑠 = −𝟏𝟖%

𝑤



= 𝑊





𝑀𝐶



100%



= −𝟔𝟕.𝟎 𝒍𝒃

𝑊



= 𝑊



+ 𝑤



= 𝟑𝟕𝟐 𝒍𝒃

Utelite 10Mesh

𝑀𝐶



𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟎%

𝑀𝐶



= 𝑀𝐶



- 𝐴𝑏𝑠 = −𝟏𝟖%

𝑤



= 𝑊





𝑀𝐶



100%



= −𝟔𝟕.𝟎 𝒍𝒃

𝑊



= 𝑊



+ 𝑤



= 𝟑𝟕𝟐 𝒍𝒃

Perlite

𝑀𝐶



𝑊



- 𝑊



𝑊



× 100% = 𝟎%

𝑀𝐶



= 𝑀𝐶



- 𝐴𝑏𝑠 = −𝟏𝟕𝟎%

𝑤



= 𝑊





𝑀𝐶



100%



= −𝟐𝟏𝟕.𝟔 𝒍𝒃

𝑊



= 𝑊



+ 𝑤



= 𝟏𝟐𝟖.𝟎 𝒍𝒃

WATER

𝑤

ℎ

= 𝑤 − 󰇡𝑤



+ 𝑤



󰇢 = 𝟑𝟐𝟎 𝒍𝒃

𝑉𝑜𝑙



𝑤



62.4

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑡



= 𝟓.𝟏𝟑 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

DENSITIES, AIR CONTENT, SLUMP

𝑀



= 𝑤



+ 𝑊

,

+ 𝑊



+ 𝑊



= 𝟐𝟔𝟐𝟓.𝟕 𝒍𝒃

𝑉𝑜𝑙



= 𝑉𝑜𝑙



+ 𝑉𝑜𝑙



+ 𝑉𝑜𝑙



+ 𝑉𝑜𝑙



= 𝟐𝟒.𝟖𝟔 𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝐷



𝑀



𝑉𝑜𝑙



= 𝟏𝟎𝟐.𝟖

𝒍𝒃

𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝐷



𝑀



27 𝑓𝑡



= 𝟗𝟒.𝟔𝟓

𝒍𝒃

𝒇𝒕

𝟑

𝐴𝑖𝑟 =

(𝐷



− 𝐷



)

𝐷



∗ 100%

= 𝟕.𝟗𝟑%

𝑤

𝑐

⁄

𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

= 𝟎.𝟓𝟑

𝑤

𝑐𝑚

⁄

𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑊



= 𝟏.𝟔

AGGREGATE COMPLIANCY









∗ 100% = 𝟓𝟎.𝟑𝟏% > 𝟓𝟎% =Compliant

𝑉𝑜𝑙

,

= 𝟓𝟔.𝟔𝟑% > 𝟑𝟎% = Compliant

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

22 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS

Product Name Type

Applicable

Standard

URL/Link to Datasheet

CEMENTITOUS MATERIALS and POZZOLANS

Portland Type

I/II/V Cement

Portland

Cement

ASTM C150

ASTM C109

https://www.srmaterials.com/files/products/Phoenix%20Cement%2

0Type%20I

Final

LR.pdf

Class F fly ash Fly Ash ASTM C618

https://www.srmaterials.com/files/products/Phoenix%20Fly%20As

h%20Tech%20Sheet2013.pdf

AGGREGATES

Perlite

Amorphous

Volcanic

Glass

ASTM C332 See below for datasheet and gradation report.

Utelite Structural

Fines

Expanded

Shale

ASTM C330

https://www.utelite.com/resources/material-reports-documents/

See below for gradation report.

FIBERS

PVA RECS15

Polyvinyl

Fibers

ASTM C1116

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0088/0764/5299/files/NyconPVA

RECS15Sheet042015.pdf?7980

ADMIXTURES

MasterAir® AE

Air-

Entrainer

ASTM C 260

AASHTO M

154

CRD

C 13

https://assets.master-builders-solutions.com/en-us/masterair-ae-

90-tds.pdf

MasterGlenium®

7500

Water-

Reducer

ASTM C

494/C 494M

https://assets.master

builders

solutions.com/en

us/masterglenium-7500-tds.pdf

MasterSet®

DELVO

Hydration

Controller

ASTM C

494/C 494M

https://assets.master

builders

solutions.com/en

us/masterset

delvo-tds.pdf

MasterMatrix®

VMA 362

Viscosity-

Modifier

ASTM C

494/C 494M

https://assets.master

builders

solutions.com/en

us/mastermatrix

vma-362-tds.pdf

MasterLife®

SRA 035

Shrinkage-

Reducer

ASTM C

494/C 494M

https://assets.master

builders

solutions.com/en

us/masterlife

sra-035-tds.pdf

REINFORCING MATERIALS

Basalt

Reinforcement

Mesh Geo

Grid

Mesh

Reinforcem

ent

N/A https://basalt-mesh.com/

CURING AND SEALING COMPOUNDS

Arizona Seal

Non-Yellowing,

Acrylic Quick

Dry Sealing

Compound

Sealant C309, C1315 https://www.wrmeadows.com/data/366B.pdf

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

23 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS

Figure

Perlite Data Sheet (1)

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

24 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS

Figure

Perlite Data Sheet (2)

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

25 | P a g e

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

26 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

27 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

28 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

29 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

30 | P a g e

APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

31 | P a g e

APPENDIX E: HULL/REINFORCEMENT & PERCENT OPEN AREA CALCULATIONS

Hull Thickness

Total Thickness of Canoe Thickness = 0.5 inches

Reinforcement (Basalt Mesh) = 0.04 inches

Layers of Reinforcement = 2

Total Reinforcement Thickness

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝑅𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝐿𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡

Composite Thickness Ratio

𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 =

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑒

Composite Thickness Ratio = 16% < 50% = Compliant

Percent Open Area Calculation

Variables:

𝑡



= Thickness of reinforcement along sample length

𝑡



= Thickness of reinforcement along sample width

𝑑



= Spacing of reinforcing (center to center) along sample width + (2 ∗







)

𝑑



= Thickness of reinforcing (center to center) along sample width + (2 ∗







)

𝑛



= Number of apertures along sample length

𝑛



= Number of Apertures along sample width

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



= Area of single aperture

Open Area Calculation

∑

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



= 𝑛



∗ 𝑛



∗ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



Total Area Equation

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



= 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ



∗ 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ



Percent Open Area Equation

𝑃.𝑂.𝐴.=

∑

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎



Variable Quantity

𝑑



(mm)

30.1

𝑑



(mm)

30.6

𝑡



(mm)

5.6

𝑡



(mm)

3.9

𝑛



𝑛



Length (mm)

180.6

Width (mm)

183.6

∑

𝐴𝑟𝑒

𝑎



(mm)

22500

𝐴𝑟𝑒

𝑎



(mm)

33158.16

POA>40%

67.9%

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

32 | P a g e

APPENDIX F: DETAILED FEE ESTIMATE

Detailed Cost Estimate

Classification

Quantity

Rate ($/UM)

Cost

Labor Costs

Principal Design Engineer

160

$ 50.00

$ 8,000.00

Design Manager

132

$ 45.00

$ 5,940.00

Project Construction Manager

134

$ 40.00

$ 5,360.00

Construction Superintendent

132

$ 40.00

$ 5,280.00

Project Design Engineer

$ 35.00

$ 1,645.00

Quality Manager

121

$ 35.00

$ 4,235.00

Graduate Field Engineer

171

$ 25.00

$ 4,275.00

Technician/Drafter

$ 20.00

$ 400.00

Laborer/Lab Technician

120

$ 25.00

$ 3,000.00

Clerk/Office Admin

$ 15.00

$ 990.00

Sub-Total 1103 $ 39,125.00

Direct

Labor Cost

Includes Direct Labor Costs,

Indirect Employee Costs & Profit Multiplier

$ 129,269.00

Shipping Cost

UHAUL 26' Truck

$ 2,815.00

Sub-Total

$ 2,815.00

Expenses

Type I/II/V Cement

64.22

$ 0.07

$ 4.37

Class F/C 80/20 Blend

21.41

$ 0.05

$ 1.05

Fiber Reinforcement

0.11

$ 0.93

$ 0.10

Utelite

(All Sizes)

79.64

$ 0.05

$ 3.98

No. 6

Expanded Perlite

13.70

$ 0.47

$ 6.50

MasterGlenium

7500

0.060

gal

$ 15.00

$ 0.90

Masterset

Delvo

0.030

gal

$ 15.00

$ 0.45

Masterlife

SRA-35

0.007

gal

$ 22.00

$ 0.16

MasterMatrix

VMA 362

0.030

gal

$ 15.00

$ 0.45

Non

carbonated Water

1.279

gal

$ 0.03

$ 0.04

Basalt Mesh

62.00

$ 1.60

$ 99.20

Sealant

2.50

gal

$ 31.17

$ 77.93

Mold

$ 1,200.00

Sub-Total $ 1,395.13

Expenses $ 1,534.64

Total $ 133,618.64

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

33 | P a g e

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Figure 4 Letter of Intent

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

34 | P a g e

Figure

Pre

Qualification Form Page 1

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

35 | P a g e

Figure

Pre

Qualification Form Page 2

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

36 | P a g e

Figure

Pre

Qualification Form Page 3

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

PONDEROSA | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

37 | P a g e

Figure

Acknowledgment of Addendum No. 1

APPENDIX G: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

PONDEROSA | BACK COVER

38 | P a g e