Northern Arizona University 2020-21

Concrete Canoe Proposal

CENE 476, Fall 2020

November 23, 2020

Marie Cook, Russell Collins, Kyle Julle, Scott Murphy, Ryan Wassenberg

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Technical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 1

1.3.1 Concrete Mixture ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3.2 Reinforcement ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.3 Hull Design ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.4 Structural Calculations ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.5 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Potential Challenges .................................................................................................................. 3

1.4.1 Mix-Design ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.4.2 Concrete Application ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.4.3 Mentee Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.4.4 COVID-19 ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas ................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Task 2: Mix Design .................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Task 2.1: Mix Design Research ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2.2 Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing ................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.3 Task 2.3: Final Mix Design ................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Task 3: Hull Design ................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Task 3.1: Hull Design Research............................................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Task 3.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Task 3.3: Final Hull Design ................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Task 4: Reinforcement .............................................................................................................. 7

2.4.1 Task 4.1: Research ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.4.2 Task 4.2: Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.4.3 Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement ............................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Task 5: Structural Design ......................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Task 6: Conference .................................................................................................................... 7

2.6.1 Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal .............................................................................................. 7

2.6.2 Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report ............................................................................................... 8

2.6.3 Task 6.3: Conference Presentation ........................................................................................................ 8

2.6.4 Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition ........................................................................................ 8

2.6.5 Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal ....................................................................................... 8

2.7 Task 7: Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.7.1 Task 7.1: Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.7.2 Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 8

2.7.3 Task 7.3: Economic Impacts .................................................................................................................. 8

2.8 Task 8: Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 9

2.8.1 Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation ................................................................................................. 9

2.8.2 Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation ................................................................................................. 9

2.8.3 Task 8.3: 90% Report ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.8.4 Task 8.4: Final Report ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.8.5 Task 8.5: Website .................................................................................................................................. 9

2.8.6 Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal .............................................................................................. 9

2.8.7 Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report ............................................................................................... 9

2.8.8 Task 8.8: Conference Presentation ...................................................................................................... 10

2.8.9 Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition ...................................................................................... 10

2.8.10 Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal ............................................................................... 10

2.9 Task 9: Project Management .................................................................................................. 10

2.9.1 Task 9.1: Budget .................................................................................................................................. 10

2.9.2 Task 9.2: Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 10

2.9.3 Task 9.3: Meetings ............................................................................................................................... 10

2.10 Exclusions ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.0 SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Critical Path ............................................................................................................................. 11

4.0 STAFFING PLAN ............................................................................................................ 11

4.1 Staff Positions ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Personnel Qualifications ......................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Staffing Matrix ......................................................................................................................... 12

5.0 COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................... 12

6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 14

7.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 15

Table of Tables

Table 1 Point Breakdown by Category ........................................................................................... 1

Table 2 Staff Positions .................................................................................................................. 12

Table 3 Staffing Summary ............................................................................................................ 12

Table 4 Cost of Engineering Services Summary .......................................................................... 13

Table of Appendices

Appendix A: Project Schedule Gantt Chart ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix B: Staffing Matrix ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix C: Cost of Engineering Services Matrix ...................................................................... 18

Table of Abbreviation

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

C4 Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions

CEIAS College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences

NAU Northern Arizona University

PSWC Pacific Southwest Conference

RFP Request for Proposal

SCM Supplementary Cementitious Materials

1 | P a g e

1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

1.1 Project Description

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Concrete Canoe Competition challenges

engineering students to design and build a working concrete canoe that can then be used to race

other schools. ASCE states that the goal of the competition is to “provide civil engineering

students an opportunity to gain hands-on, practical experience and leadership skills by working

with concrete mix designs and project management” [1]. Each year, the Committee of Concrete

Canoe Competitions (C4) releases a Request for Proposal that includes the requirements and

regulations for that year’s competition. Throughout the preparation for the competition, the

students are expected to build relationships with their faculty, suppliers, and client in order to gain

a deeper understanding of the practical engineering skills used. There are 19 different conferences

across the Nation where schools gather to compete with their concrete canoe. Each Spring,

Northern Arizona University competes in the Pacific Southwest Conference (PSWC) in order to

receive a final score from the conference judges. The final score is composed of four different

categories: Technical Proposal, Enhanced Focus Area Report, Technical Presentation, and On-

Site Competition. The point breakdown of these categories is shown below in Table 1.

Table 1 Point Breakdown by Category

Categories Maximum Points

Technical Proposal

Enhanced Focus Areas

Technical Presentation

Site Competition

Total Maximum Points

100

1.2 Project Background

Northern Arizona University has been building concrete canoes since 1977. In recent years,

NAU’s canoe teams have placed as follows: 2019-2020 “Agassiz” placed 9

overall, 2018-2019

“VolCanoe” placed 11

overall, and 2017-2018 “Canoopa” placed 9

overall. Each of these

rankings was out of a total of 18 schools. Canoopa placed strongly in the categories of both design

paper (5

) and final product (6

). On the other hand, VolCanoe placed 13

in design paper and

in final product. NAU struggles with maneuvering the canoe each year which makes the

maneuverability of the canoe one of this year’s major goals. This year’s competition will be held

at University of California, Los Angeles in April of 2021.

1.3 Technical Considerations

1.3.1 Concrete Mixture

The mix design for NAU’s concrete canoe will be governed by rules drafted by the

Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions (C4). These rules control the design of the

mix by limiting the materials available to contestants, constraining certain dimensions of

the canoe and the amount of mixes that can be applied to the canoe. A maximum of one

2 | P a g e

concrete mix will be allowed per the rules this year. In this mix, the cementitious materials

are required to meet common ASTM standards and all the aggregates must meet the

definition of “fine aggregate” provided by ASTM C125. At least 30% (by volume) of the

total mix is required to be aggregates. A minimum of 50% of these aggregates must be

composed of ASTM C330 compliant aggregates and/or recycled concrete aggregate.

Microspheres and cenospheres, such as Poraver, are not permitted for use as aggregates

this year. The mix may also contain small reinforcement fibers spread evenly throughout

the canoe.

The final mix is expected to weigh less than the water the canoe will displace, and have a

density lower, or very similar, to that of water. This will be achieved by using lightweight

aggregates and replacing some of the heavy cement with supplementary cementitious

materials (SCM’s). Air entrained mixes may also be used to reduce the weight by replacing

a portion of the volume of the canoe with air.

1.3.2 Reinforcement

Reinforcement for the canoe is there to ensure the canoe will be able to withstand the loads

that could be applied. Reinforcement must be implemented into the canoe in a way that

satisfies the rules set by the C4. Different reinforcement options will be researched and

tested before deciding a final reinforcement material that will be used in the canoe. The

two types of reinforcement that will be implemented will be reinforcing mesh and fibers.

Research and testing will be performed on the mesh and the fibers that are considered in

order to maximize the strength provided to the final project. The mesh will be placed inside

the layers of the concrete in order to increase the overall strength of the concrete. The fibers

will be mixed in with the concrete mix in order to help prevent cracking in the finished

canoe.

1.3.3 Hull Design

The overall design goal of the hull is to increase control for the rowers. The constraints and

criteria that support these ideas are to have a hull that is stable, efficient, tracks well, and

complies to ASCE Concrete Canoe Rules. These design goals will help the rowers be quick

on the straightaways and avoid tipping. The hull design will be first drawn using the

program, SolidWorks. This program will be able to create the hull in a 3D format. Multiple

design iterations will be completed in SolidWorks to fully understand the different hull

design features that effect the main goal. The multiple design iterations will explore

different stems, gunwales, profiles, midspans, bows, and entry lines. After a set number of

designs pass the decision matrix, those designs will be uploaded to the program called

MaxSurf. MaxSurf is a program that optimizes and analyzes the hull design. The program

also allows the user to make edits to design and reevaluate. The major impact that MaxSurf

is going to have on hull design is the ability to determine the resistance factor and model

the canoe in water before constructing the canoe. Modeling the canoe in water is going to

have the impact of being able to optimize the height of the canoe in the water and create

the best rowing experience. The final design will maximize the design challenges.

3 | P a g e

1.3.4 Structural Calculations

One of the main goals when designing and constructing the canoe is to ensure that it has

the required strength to perform in every aspect needed in the competition as well as be

able to be picked up and moved without crumbling. The structural calculations will take

place in accordance to the rules set by the C4 and will be performed to accommodate the

stresses and strains that the canoe will endure. Bending moment is the main type of stress

the canoe will endure which can cause it to crack and break in areas. The structural

calculations will be performed in accordance to the mix design, hull design, and

reinforcement that is selected by the team for the final product. The canoe must be analyzed

in a way that ensures the structural aspect of the concrete can support the stresses and

strains that will be acting on it.

1.3.5 Aesthetics

The final design and aesthetics of the canoe will reflect Northern Arizona University and

the ASCE student chapter. The aesthetics of the canoe is judged at the competition. The

main goals of the aesthetics are to provide a mix that can be applied uniformly across the

mold. The overall theme of the canoe and aesthetics is drawn from the great and mighty

Ponderosa Pine tree. The Ponderosa Pine trees in Northern Arizona can grow to 150 feet

high and live to be 600 years old. The Ponderosa Pine trees will be used for inspiration,

strength, and beauty for the overall aesthetics of final design of the canoe.

1.4 Potential Challenges

1.4.1 Mix-Design

Mix design is the first important challenge that the team will encounter as it sets the base

for the project. The challenges that go along with mix design is creating a lightweight but

durable mix. The mix must generate enough compressive/tensile strength while

maintaining an exceptional streamline in the water. Shotcrete will be explored as a possible

mix, which would require a less viscous mix due to the nature of the spraying application,

but the mix must also have a high cohesion so the concrete can adhere to a mold. Through

the process of trial and error, several mix designs will be created and tested for compressive

strength, slump, and workability to determine the final mix design.

1.4.2 Concrete Application

The application of the concrete is the second key challenge that the team must overcome.

The best application process will be tested and selected for canoe construction in future

competitions. The team has two options for the application process; by hand or with

Shotcrete. Each process has unique challenges that must be addressed and mitigated. Each

of the applications requires a different type of concrete mix. A challenge that is similar to

both processes is the reinforcement moving while the concrete is being placed. This issue

will be addressed by using smaller sections of reinforcement if placed by hand. If placed

using Shotcrete the goal is that the different application style and mix design will allow the

concrete to be applied with minimal movement in the reinforcement.

1.4.2a Placement by Hand

While applying the concrete, it is important to have an even distribution of

aggregate throughout the canoe. This issue could be solved by having mentees and

team members constantly spread and smooth the concrete as it is being placed.

4 | P a g e

1.4.2b Shotcrete Application

The challenge with Shotcrete is confirming the lifts applied are even and consistent.

The most efficient way to limit the error is to have a singular team member in charge

of the Shotcrete application sprayer. Then, trowels will be used to smooth the

applied concrete which will assist in assuring the concrete is evenly placed around

the mold.

1.4.3 Mentee Involvement

Mentees are students not yet involved in a capstone project who contribute their time to

help the canoe team successfully finish the project. With the restrictions of COVID-19 and

many students attending school remotely, the team could have issues with mentee

involvement. The team will perform recruitment efforts in order to mitigate this issue.

Involving mentees in the design process will also help to prepare them for what they may

do for their capstone project. A strong mentee program will ensure the sustainability of

NAU’s concrete canoe involvement for years to come.

1.4.4 COVID-19

COVID-19 has posed a large issue for the project’s completion. Due to the current

restrictions, the competition delivery has been changed from in-person to remote. Building

a full-size concrete canoe is not a requirement for the 2021 competition. The team has

decided that building a canoe would not contribute to their sustainability goal and therefore

has decided to focus on other sustainable options. COVID-19 will continue to force

modification of the competition and adjustments to the deliverables. The team is prepared

to be flexible with the inevitable changes that are to come and will work diligently to

successfully complete the project.

1.5 Stakeholders

The stakeholders in this year’s concrete canoe project are the client, Northern Arizona University,

Northern Arizona University’s College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Science (NAU

CEIAS), NAU ASCE student chapter, and team sponsors. The client is the most important

stakeholder as the project and its entirety fully depend on their satisfaction with the provided

deliverables and final product. If the team performs well in the Pacific Southwest Conference, the

success will bring positive attention towards Northern Arizona University as a whole and as well

as the College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences. With the team’s involvement

in the ASCE student chapter, a strong performance in the competition will attract underclass

members and improve the funding for the association. With the donations and support provided

by the sponsors, a positive result in the competition will advertise each sponsor as their

information will be on display for a number of students, schools, and professionals.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas

Two areas of enhanced focus will determine and guide the work done by the 2021 canoe team. A

decision matrix will be created and used for deciding which two focus areas the team will have

this year. There are options provided in the Request for Proposal and the team will also develop

their own ideas. The final two enhanced focus areas will decide the succeeding tasks.

5 | P a g e

2.2 Task 2: Mix Design

2.2.1 Task 2.1: Mix Design Research

2.2.1.1 Task 2.1.1: Cementitious materials

The team will research past mix designs used at NAU and at other schools in order to

develop a starting point for ratios in the mix design. From there, the ratios of cement to

cementitious materials will be analyzed and re-evaluated for the following mix designs.

The proportions of cementitious materials within the mix design will affect the overall

combined strength and weight of the final product.

2.2.1.2 Task 2.1.2: Aggregates

The team will research different types of super-lightweight non-microsphere aggregates

because these have been prohibited per the 2021 Rules. Fifty percent of the aggregates

utilized in the mix design will either be C330 compliant or recycled concrete aggregate

(RCA). Research will be conducted through contacting material suppliers to receive expert

consultation. Aggregates occupy the majority of the volume of the mix and will determine

the density and strength of the mix.

2.2.1.3 Task 2.1.3: Admixtures

The team will communicate with suppliers to receive expert guidance regarding the

permitted admixtures per the 2021 Rules [2]. Proportions of these admixtures may change

from the initial mix design to the final mix design. Admixtures are performance-driven

additions to the mix design.

2.2.2 Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing

2.2.2.1 Task 2.2.1: Slump Test

For each mix design cylinder, slump tests will be conducted following ASTM C143

standards in a material testing lab. The slump value describes how viscous the mix is and

its workability.

2.2.2.2 Task 2.2.2: Unit weight of mix

Prior to compressive and tensile strength tests, the unit weight will be calculated from the

cylinders. This will follow ASTM C138 standards. Unit weight will provide the necessary

information to calculate specific gravity, providing the team with the buoyancy of the

concrete.

2.2.2.3 Task 2.2.3: Compressive Strength

Compressive strength tests will be conducted at the 14-day and 28-day marks.

Task 2.2.3.1: 14-day break

A compressive strength test will be conducted at the 14-day mark for each mix

design option. This test will follow ASTM C39 standards. The 14-day break will

allow for a prediction of the 28-day compressive strength. This saves time as it

identifies errors within the mix.

6 | P a g e

Task 2.2.3.2: 28-day break

A compressive strength test will be conducted at the 28-day mark for each mix

design option. This test will follow ASTM C39 standards. The 28-day break will

provide the final compressive strength values that will be used in structural

calculations.

2.2.2.4 Task 2.2.4: Tensile Strength

Tensile strength tests will be conducted at the 14-day and 28-day marks.

Task 2.2.4.1: 14-day break

A tensile strength test will be conducted at the 14-day mark for each mix design

option. This test will follow ASTM C496 standards. The 14-day break will allow

for a prediction of the 28-day tensile strength. This will indicate the performance

of the fiber reinforcement within the mix.

Task 2.2.4.2: 28-day break

A tensile strength test will be conducted at the 28-day mark for each mix design

option. This test will follow ASTM C496 standards. The 28-day break will provide

the final tensile strength values that will be used in structural calculations.

2.2.3 Task 2.3: Final Mix Design

Once the team has developed multiple mix design options, completed the necessary testing

for each, and improved each new design from previous designs, the final mix design will

be chosen. This final mix will be considered in the hull design and reinforcement options

and will be used for structural calculations. The final mix design table will be included in

the final report and conference technical proposal.

2.3 Task 3: Hull Design

2.3.1 Task 3.1: Hull Design Research

The team will research geometric options for the hull design while following the

dimensional limits set within the Request for Proposal that was released by C4. The shape

chosen for the hull design affects the performance of the canoe.

2.3.2 Task 3.2 Analysis

2.3.2.1 Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks

SolidWorks will be used for the design component of hull design. The chosen geometric

shape will be implemented within the program. SolidWorks is a computer-aided drafting

program that is compatible with other analysis programs such as MaxSurf.

2.3.2.2 Task 3.2.2: MaxSurf

MaxSurf will be used to optimize the SolidWorks design through simulation. MaxSurf is

a program that analyzes the hydrodynamics of vessels. This will help the team to predict

the canoe’s performance in water.

7 | P a g e

2.3.3 Task 3.3: Final Hull Design

Once the team has completed the mix design research and utilized both SolidWorks and

MaxSurf, the hull design will be finalized. This final hull design will be used in the

structural calculations and visual depictions from SolidWorks and MaxSurf will be

included in the final report and conference technical proposal.

2.4 Task 4: Reinforcement

2.4.1 Task 4.1: Research

The final canoe design will include both a primary reinforcement, mesh, and a secondary

reinforcement, fibers. Research on mesh reinforcement that has been used in the past will

be conducted along with exploring other environmentally cautious options. Research will

be done for various types of fiber reinforcement. The research will indicate the predicted

strength of both the mesh and the fibers.

2.4.2 Task 4.2: Analysis

Analysis comparing the researched options of mesh reinforcement will be conducted

through a decision matrix that utilizes the material properties provided from the suppliers.

The strength of the fibers will be analyzed through tensile testing, done in Task 1.2.4. The

analysis for primary and secondary reinforcement will provide values necessary to

complete the structural calculations.

2.4.3 Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement

Once the team has performed the necessary research and testing for both fiber and mesh

reinforcement, the final reinforcement for each will be decided. The strengths of these

reinforcements will be included in the structural calculations and in both the final report

and the conference technical proposal.

2.5 Task 5: Structural Design

The team will perform the structural calculations in accordance with the rules set by C4. These

calculations will ensure the structural integrity of the canoe in different loading situations such as

a 2-man versus a 4-man race. The calculations will be done in an excel sheet so that the variables

can be easily edited. The results from the reinforcement testing and the mix design testing will be

included within these calculations. Final calculations will be checked by an expert before

finalizing the design.

2.6 Task 6: Conference

2.6.1 Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal

A technical proposal will be submitted for points toward the overall competition score. The

technical proposal will follow the provided outline given in the Request for Proposal

released by C4 [2]. The proposal will be judged based on the overall design components

along with the success of the project management.

8 | P a g e

2.6.2 Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report

The team will submit a report justifying and presenting the chosen enhanced focus areas

for this year’s canoe. This report will follow the guidelines set in the Request for Proposal

released by C4 [2]. The enhanced focus area report will be judged based on the selection

process along with overall summaries of the enhanced focus areas. It will also be judged

based on the problem statement, technical solution, results, and team collaboration for each

of the enhanced focus areas. The final item the report is judged on is the overall

presentation of the report.

2.6.3 Task 6.3: Conference Presentation

The team will create a presentation to be presented live to a panel of judges for part of the

overall competition score. The presentation will be given either virtually or in-person if

permitted. The presentation will challenge the team to enhance their competence and

knowledge of the project.

2.6.4 Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition

This new addition to the competition requires the team to interview one NAU Concrete

Canoe alumni to understand how their concrete canoe experiences influenced their

professional career. This video submission will encourage the team to engage with past

canoe members.

2.6.5 Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal

New to this year’s competition, each team is required to peer review another school’s

technical proposal. C4 will randomly assign a technical proposal for the NAU team to

review. These redlines will be done following the regional competition proposal

submission but prior to the society-wide competition. The NAU team will submit the

redlines to C4 prior to the submission deadline.

2.7 Task 7: Impacts

2.7.1 Task 7.1: Social Impacts

The impacts of the project on the surrounding community will be analyzed throughout the

course of the project. This includes the NAU Engineering Department, the NAU ASCE

Student Chapter, and the affected student and faculty population.

2.7.2 Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts of the materials being used will be assessed and addressed. The

team will limit the negative environmental impacts through sustainable design and

construction practices.

2.7.3 Task 7.3: Economic Impacts

The economic impacts from the project will be addressed and documented throughout the

project.

9 | P a g e

2.8 Task 8: Deliverables

2.8.1 Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation

A 30% report and presentation will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline.

The 30% report will be the first rough draft submission to ensure the team is on track for

the final report.

2.8.2 Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation

A 60% report and presentation will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline.

The 60% report will be the second rough draft submission to ensure the team is on track

for the final report.

2.8.3 Task 8.3: 90% Report

A 90% report will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline. A practice final

presentation will be given in order to receive feedback before the final presentation. The

90% report will be the last draft submission prior to the final report. This submission will

include all completed sections of the report with the expectation of receiving final redlines.

2.8.4 Task 8.4: Final Report

The final report will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline. The final report

will document the overall design and performance of the team’s work throughout the

course of the project.

2.8.5 Task 8.5: Website

The team will put together a website that includes all team contact information along with

the deliverables listed above. By the end of this project, this website will outline the work

done throughout the project. Creating a website will allow for an electronic documentation

method that can be used by future engineering students.

2.8.6 Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal

The team will submit a Technical Proposal to the Concrete Canoe Competition to be

technically reviewed by the judges. This proposal will be judged based on the overall

organization and professionalism, technical approach, scope, schedule, fees, health and

safety, quality control and quality assurance, sustainability, construction drawings and

specifications, project schedule, mix materials and proportions, structural calculations, and

innovation. The final submission will encompass the overall progress of the team

throughout the course of the project.

2.8.7 Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report

The team will submit a report justifying and presenting the chosen enhanced focus areas

for this year’s canoe. This report will follow the guidelines set in the Request for Proposal

released by C4 [2]. The enhanced focus area report will be judged based on the selection

process along with overall summaries of the enhanced focus areas. It will also be judged

based on the problem statement, technical solution, results, and team collaboration for each

of the enhanced focus areas. The final item the report is judged on is the overall

presentation of the report.

10 | P a g e

2.8.8 Task 8.8: Conference Presentation

Two members of the team will give a live technical presentation in front of a panel of

conference judges. The presentation will be 5 minutes in length with an additional 10

minutes afterwards for questions from the panel of judges. The team will be responsible

for the equipment and location used for their part of the live presentation. The presentation

will be judged based on the performance of the presenters, the actual presentation itself,

and the answers to the questions during the Q&A following the presentation.

2.8.9 Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition

This new addition to the competition requires the team to interview one NAU Concrete

Canoe alumni to understand how their concrete canoe experiences influenced their

professional career. This video submission will encourage the team to engage with past

canoe members.

2.8.10 Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal

New to this year’s competition, each team is required to peer review another school’s

technical proposal. C4 will randomly assign a technical proposal for the NAU team to

review. These redlines will be done following the regional competition proposal

submission but prior to the society-wide competition. The NAU team will submit the

redlines to C4 prior to the submission deadline.

2.9 Task 9: Project Management

2.9.1 Task 9.1: Budget

A budget analysis will be conducted by the team before the project work begins to ensure

that the necessary funds are met to complete the project. Fundraising is necessary for this

project in order to purchase materials for the mix design, construction preparation, and

transportation. Fundraising will be conducted to meet the budget demands.

2.9.2 Task 9.2: Schedule

A schedule will be created in order to keep the team progressing throughout the semester.

A Gantt chart will be utilized to visually represent the schedule.

2.9.3 Task 9.3: Meetings

Meetings with the team, client, and technical advisor will be held regularly to ensure all

parties are up to date with the progress of the project.

2.10 Exclusions

There are no exclusions for this project because the construction component is no longer included.

3.0 SCHEDULE

The duration of the project from start to finish is 145 working days. This includes breaks for

Thanksgiving (November 21, 2020 through December 2, 2020), Christmas and New Year’s

(December 21, 2020 through January 4, 2021). In the schedule, working days are classified as

weekdays, Monday through Friday, 8 hours per day. The tasks within the schedule follow the same

11 | P a g e

numbering system as the tasks in Section 2.0 Scope shown above. The milestones identified within

the schedule are shown as black diamonds and include: enhanced focus areas, final mix design,

final hull design, final reinforcement, structural calculations, conference technical proposal,

enhanced focus areas report, conference presentation, R. John Craig Legacy competition, and peer

review of technical proposal. The sub-tasks shown under Task 8: Deliverables, are all shown with

their assigned durations rather than as milestones so that the team will stay on-task with the starting

dates of each assignment. Refer to Appendix A for the full Gantt chart.

3.1 Critical Path

The critical path is shown in red on the attached Gantt chart. The items included in the critical

path must be completed on time to meet the set project end date of April 29, 2021. The starting

date of each critical task will be closely monitored through weekly team meetings to ensure the

team stays on track with the critical path. The first critical task in the schedule is Task 2.1: Mix

Design Research which includes Task 2.1.1: Cementitious Materials, Task 2.1.2: Aggregates, and

Task 2.1.3: Admixtures. The next critical task is Task 3: Hull Design which includes Task 3.1:

Hull Design Research, Task 3.2: Hull Design Analysis, Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks, and Task 3.2.2:

MaxSurf. The following critical task is Task 4: Reinforcement which includes Task 4.1: Research

and Task 4.2: Analysis. The final set of critical tasks are under Task 8: Deliverables which include

Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation, Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation, Task 8.3: 90%

Report, Task 8.4: Final Report, and Task 8.5: Website. The items listed above make up the critical

path because in order for the project to finish by its deadline, these specific tasks must be

completed on time. If any of these items are delayed, it would delay all succeeding critical path

tasks and would affect the project end date.

4.0 STAFFING PLAN

4.1 Staff Positions

The staff positions for this project are as follows: Principal Design Engineer (PDE), Design

Manager (DM), Project Design Engineer (PE), Quality Manager (QM), Graduate Field Engineer

(EIT), Technician/Drafter (TD), and Laborer/Lab Technician (LT). The Principal Design

Engineer oversees and approves all of the work completed throughout the project. The Design

Manager is in charge of all things design, from mix to structural. The Quality Manager ensures

that all of the work completed meets the required standards while analyzing the economic, social,

and environmental impacts of the project. The Graduate Field Engineer works on all parts of the

project and must have their work reviewed and approved by the PDE. The Technician/Drafter

specifically works on drafting plans such as the hull design. The Laborer/Lab Technician

performs lab testing and mix design tasks. These staffing positions are summarized in Table 2

below.

12 | P a g e

Table 2 Staff Positions

Staff Positions

Title Abbreviation

Principal Design Engineer PDE

Design Manager DM

Project Design Engineer PE

Quality Manager QM

Graduate Field Engineer EIT

Technician/Drafter TD

Laborer/Lab Technician LT

4.2 Personnel Qualifications

Each of the five senior level students that will contribute to the project have taken necessary

classes that directly relate to the work done for the canoe. These classes include Mechanics of

Materials lecture and lab, Geotechnical Engineering Lab, Reinforced Concrete Design, Structural

Analysis, and Water Resources lecture and lab. Passing these classes ensures the students working

on the project have sufficient knowledge to successfully complete the project.

4.3 Staffing Matrix

A staffing matrix was created to outline the total hours for each of the staffing positions. The

staffing matrix is organized with task versus staffing positions. The team assigned hours for each

staffing position for each task listed in the scope of the project. For the full staffing matrix, refer

to Appendix B. A summary of the total hours for each staff position is shown below in Table 3.

Table 3 Staffing Summary

Staffing Summary

Title Hours

PDE

136

120

180

144

EIT

210

100

Total 944

5.0 COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

To determine the total cost of engineering services, a matrix was created that shows the cost of

personnel, travel, lab use, and materials. The personnel descriptions and total hours correspond to

4.3 Staffing Matrix. The raw labor rates and multipliers were taken directly from Exhibit 8 of the

Request for Proposal [2].

13 | P a g e

The travel costs were estimated for material acquisition because the necessary materials are not

often locally available. Lab use costs refer to the use of NAU on-campus labs that will be used for

both mix design and material testing. The lab use costs fall under the category of direct expenses

when referring to the RFP [2]. Per Exhibit 8 of the RFP, the direct expenses experience a markup

of 10% [2]. The material costs shown in the matrix are the materials used during mix testing. The

summary table of the cost of engineering services is shown below in Table 4. For the full matrix

for cost of engineering services, refer to Appendix C.

Table 4 Cost of Engineering Services Summary

Cost of Engineering Services Summary

Description Cost

Personnel

$ 109,504

Travel

$ 216

Lab Use

$ 1,10

Materials

$ 113

Total $ 110,933

14 | P a g e

6.0 REFERENCES

[1] Asce.org. 2020. ASCE Concrete Canoe Competition. [online] Available at:

<https://www.asce.org/event/2021/concrete-canoe/> [Accessed 3 September 2020].

[2] Asce.org. 2020. [online] Available at:

<https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Conferences_and_Events/Event_Subpages/Co

ntent_Pieces/2021-asce-ccc-rfp.pdf> [Accessed 11 September 2020].

[3] “NAU Fleet Services,” Rental Vehicles. [Online]. Available:

https://in.nau.edu/comptroller/travel-welcome/. [Accessed: 20-Oct-2020].

[4] Liu, R., Appelbaum, E. and Shakoor, A., 2018. Cost-Effective Uses Of Lightweight

Aggregate Made From Dredged Material In Construction. The Ohio Department of

Transportation, Office of Statewide Planning & Research. Federal Highway

Administration.

[5] R. J. Collins and S. Palmer, “Market Development Manager at SRMG,” 19-Oct-2020.

[6] R. J. Collins and D. Wittenben, “Arizona Admixture Representative from BASF,” 19-

Oct-2020.

[7] BASF Diamondshield Glass Fiber Mesh 38" X 150' | Coastal Construction Products".

Coastalone.Com, 2020, https://coastalone.com/basf-diamondshield-glass-fiber-mesh-

38-x-150.html

15 | P a g e

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 Appendix A: Project Schedule Gantt Chart

Refer to the next page for a full 11’x17’ Gantt chart.

16 | P a g e

Critical Path

shown in red

7.2 Appendix B: Staffing Matrix

Task PDE DM PE QM EIT TD LT

Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Task 2: Mix Design 8 40 22 32 40 2 52

Task 2.1: Mix Design Research

Task 2.1.1: Cementitious

materials

Task 2.1.2: Aggregates

Task 2.1.3: Admixtures

Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing

Task 2.2.1: Slump Test

Task 2.2.2: Unit weight of mix

Task 2.2.3:

Compressive Strength

Task 2.2.3.1: 14

day break

Task 2.2.3.2: 28

day break

Task 2.2.4: Tensile Strength

Task 2.2.4.1: 14

day break

Task 2.2.4.2: 28

day break

Task 2.3: Final Mix Design

Task 3: Hull Design 3 10 6 10 4 26 0

Task 3.1: Hull Design Research

Task 3.2 Analysis

Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks

Task 3.2.2: MaxSurf

Task 3.3: Final Hull Design

Task 4: Reinforcement 11 24 0 10 8 0 16

Task 4.1: Research

Task 4.2: Analysis

Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement

Task 5: Structural Design 16 16 16 6 10 2 0

Task 6: Conference 6 2 0 0 0 0 0

Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal

Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report

Task 6.3: Conference Presentation

Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition

Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal

Task 7: Impacts 3 0 0 30 0 0 16

Task 7.1: Social Impacts

Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts

Task 7.3: Economic Impacts

Task 8: Deliverables 51 12 120 40 124 8 0

Task 8.1: 30% Report

Task 8.2: 60% Report

Task 8.3: 90% Report

Task 8.4: Final Report

Task 8.5: Website

Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal

Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report

Task 8.8: Conference Presentation

Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition

Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal

Task 9: Project Management 34 12 12 12 20 12 12

Task 9.1: Budget

Task 9.2: Schedule

Task 9.3: Meetings

Total (EA) 136 120 180 144 210 54 100

Project Total 944

7.3 Appendix C: Cost of Engineering Services Matrix

Engineering Services Cost Estimate

Description QTY Unit of Measure Rate (USD/UM) Cost

PERSONNEL (direct employee costs + indirect employee costs)

Principal Design Engineer

136

165

$ 22,440

Design Manager

120

148

$ 17,760

Project Design Engineer

180

132

$ 23,760

Quality Manager

144

115

$ 16,560

Graduate Field Engineer

210

$ 17,220

Technician/Drafter

$ 3,564

Laborer/Lab Technician

100

$ 8,200

Personnel Total

$ 109,504

TRAVEL

Travel for Material Acquisition [3]

600

Miles

$ 0.36

$ 216

Travel Total

$ 216

LAB USE

Field Station

Days

110

$ 660

Materials Testing Laboratory

Days

110

$ 440

Lab Use Total

$ 1,100

MATERIALS

Cementitious Materials [4]

$ 8.

Aggregates [5]

3.5

5.50

$ 19.25

Admixtures [6]

0.5

GAL

16.50

8.25

Reinforcement [7]

$ 77.00

Materials Total

$ 113

Project Total

$ 110,933