VolCanoe

2019 Concrete Canoe Design Report

Northern Arizona University

 VolCanoe

Table of Contents
List of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ ii
Hull Design and Structural Analysis........................................................................................................................1
Development and Testing ........................................................................................................................................3
Construction .............................................................................................................................................................6
Project and Quality Management .............................................................................................................................8
Organizational Chart ..............................................................................................................................................10
Project Schedule.....................................................................................................................................................11
Construction Drawing ............................................................................................................................................12

List of Figures
Figure 1: VolCanoe 3D Hull Model.........................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Simplified Beam Analysis of 4-Person Racing Scenario .........................................................................2
Figure 3: Comparison of Loading Scenarios ...........................................................................................................2
Figure 4: Sieving Crushed Pumice Aggregate .........................................................................................................3
Figure 5: VolCanoe Cross-Section...........................................................................................................................5
Figure 6: Mold Construction in Progress .................................................................................................................6
Figure 7: Shadow Sanding of Mold .........................................................................................................................6
Figure 8: Flex Seal Applied on Mold ......................................................................................................................6
Figure 9: Exterior Finishing .....................................................................................................................................7
Figure 10: Placement of Spine and Structural Layer ...............................................................................................7
Figure 11: Body Reinforcement and Interior Finishing Layer ................................................................................7
Figure 12: Construction of Curing Chamber ...........................................................................................................7
Figure 13: Kindergarteners’ Fieldtrip to NAU ........................................................................................................8
Figure 14: Summary of Project Cost........................................................................................................................8
Figure 15: Total Hours Allocated ............................................................................................................................9

List of Tables
Table 1: Innovative Features ................................................................................................................................... ii
Table 2: VolCanoe General Properties ................................................................................................................... ii
Table 3: VolCanoe Concrete Properties .................................................................................................................. ii
Table 4: Structural Analysis Results ........................................................................................................................2
Table 5: Finishing Mix Aggregate Proportions .......................................................................................................5
Table 6: Monetary Value of Donated Material ........................................................................................................8
Table 7: Monetary Value of Purchased Materials ...................................................................................................9
Table 8: Project Milestones .....................................................................................................................................9

List of Appendices
Appendix A - References.................................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B - Mixture Proportions and Primary Mixture Calculation ................................................................B-1
Appendix C - Example Structural Calculations...................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D - Hull Thickness/Reinforcement and POA Calculations................................................................ D-1

ii
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Executive Summary
Desert, cacti, and 100-degree weather are the mentee involvement. Notably, a female mold was
general public’s idea of life in Arizona. Yet, Flagstaff, constructed for the first time in five years, natural
in the heart of Northern Arizona, is the home to the occurring aggregates including recycled glass and
largest contiguous Ponderosa Pine forest, capable of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam were introduced to
producing approximately 36 inches of snow in one the mix design, and a practice canoe was constructed
day. The drastic change in scenery surrounding for the first time in history at NAU. Table 1 summarizes
the innovative features VolCanoe implemented.
Flagstaff can largely be attributed to the historic
VolCanoe’s general properties and concrete mix
volcanic activity in Northern Arizona. The San
properties are found in Table 2 and 3 respectively.
Francisco Peaks, Mount Elden, and Sunset Crater are Table 1: Innovative Features
a few of the 600 volcanos which make activities such Task Notable Feature
as hiking, snowboarding, high elevation star gazing, Decreased length by 15% and thickness by 40%;
Hull Design implemented first female mold at NAU since
and sight-seeing possible in Flagstaff (USGS 2001). 2014
Northern Arizona University (NAU) selected a Structural
Eliminated need for post tensioning
volcano theme for the National Concrete Canoe Analysis
Competition (NCCC), branding it as VolCanoe. The Mixture Doubled structural mix compressive strength;
Design tripled structural mix flexural strength
team felt a volcano theme would fully encompass and Practice canoe implemented; new and improved
highlight the reasons Flagstaff and NAU are unique. Construction
curing chamber constructed
For many, volcanos symbolize upward Project Increased amount of donated materials by
challenges and the value beyond merely a destination, Management $1,221; increased mentee involvement by 60%
but also within the journey. VolCanoe aims to adopt the Recycled foam glass aggregate, basalt
same methodology when competing at the 2019 Pacific Sustainability reinforcement mesh, recycled EPS foam, natural
pumice, and shale incorporated into mix design
South West Conference (PSWC). The team aims to
gain valuable experience and learning opportunities at Table 2: VolCanoe General Properties
every step within the project. Hull Dimensions
In recent history, NAU’s Canoopa (2018), Maximum Length 219 in
Paddlegonia (2017), and Polaris (2016) regionally Maximum Width 33 in
placed 11th, 8th, and 6th, respectfully. Understanding Maximum Depth 16 in
the journey to the top will be difficult, VolCanoe seeks Average Thickness 0.75 in
to be encouraged by the long trail ahead, identifying Estimated Weight 300 lbs
Reinforcement
and celebrating the milestones achieved and lessons
Primary Basalt Mesh
learned along the way. Unsatisfied with conference 8mm PVA Fibers and MasterFiber
outcomes in previous years, VolCanoe identified areas Secondary
MAC Matrix Fibers
of improvement and executed innovative solutions Color
within each major category for the NCCC. Interior Finishing Mix Red
Compared to Canoopa, VolCanoe increased Structural Mix N/A
maneuverability by decreasing the length by 15 percent Exterior Finishing Mix Black
and thickness of the canoe by 40 percent, eased
constructability by eliminating the need for post Table 3: VolCanoe Concrete Properties
tensioning reinforcement, increased compressive Mixes Finishing Structural
strength by a factor of two, increased flexural strength Wet Unit Weight 59.4 pcf 63.7 pcf
by a factor of three, and redesigned the curing chamber Oven-Dry Unit Weight 47 pcf 53 pcf
to increase efficiency. Support for NAU’s canoe team 28-Day Compressive Strength 1,950 psi 2,080 psi
and general awareness for the American Society of 28-Day Tensile Strength 270 psi 300 psi
Civil Engineers (ASCE) was gained and shown 28-Day Flexural Strength 1,330 psi 1,500 psi
through a substantial increase in donated materials and Concrete Air Content 10.0% 9.1%

ii

ii
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Hull Design and Structural Analysis

Hull Design would also help resist tipping for inexperienced
The NAU concrete canoe team had four goals paddlers, as the hull design would provide more
to improve on the previous year’s canoe hull design. stability than Canoopa’s flat-bottom design. The
The first goal was to lighten the canoe, the second goal sloped walls provided one inch of additional surface
was to increase maneuverability of the canoe, the third area for the paddler to gather stability with their body,
goal was to maintain the stability of the canoe, and the while still providing paddlers access to the water.
fourth goal was to minimize the size of the canoe while Figure 1 at the top right shows the 3D model of
still maintaining adequate buoyancy. After researching VolCanoe created on SolidWorksⓇ (2018).
canoe designs the team decided to go with a shallow-V
hull design.
The team discovered the shallow-V hull design
was the best compromise between maneuverability and
stability, based on comments from past paddlers and
team members that had worked on previous canoes.
The “V” portion at the bottom is made up of a 15-
degree chime. The team built a rocker into the canoe to
help the canoe handle small waves smoothly. The
rocker extends approximately 2 feet from either end of
the canoe and has a radius of 2.74 feet. The radius was
selected from commercially available canoe model
measurements that the team felt would make a good
model. The team decided on an overall length of 18 Figure 1: VolCanoe 3D Hull Model (SolidWorksⓇ 2018)
feet. The length was decreased in comparison to
Canoopa’s previous length of 21 feet because last Structural Analysis
year’s design was harder to maneuver in the water by The structural analysis for VolCanoe consists of
previous paddlers. Paddlers mentioned that the canoe a primary goal of justifying the elimination and use of
took more strength and effort to rotate about a fixed post tensioning cable reinforcement and the adoption of
point because of the length of the canoe. The team only one encompassing layer of mesh reinforcement.
determined that shortening the canoe by three feet Paddlegonia and Canoopa both integrated post
would improve the maneuverability of VolCanoe in the tensioning cables and two encompassing layers of
water by the paddlers, while maintaining the excellent mesh reinforcement, creating difficulties in ensuring
buoyancy of Canoopa. This was determined by the thickness’ quality assurance. As a result, the
analyzing the weight of the canoe in relation to the canoes’ actual thickness resulted in nearly a triple and
length, the strength of paddlers, and the ability of double respective increase compared to the desired
previous paddlers to turn the canoe sharply around a thickness. Consequently, the overall weight and
fixed point. volume were also larger than anticipated. The
The width of the canoe was decided upon to secondary goals of the analysis include resulting
minimize weight and volume while maximizing accurate stress values obtained from shear and moment
comfort, as previous paddlers commented on an diagrams and calculating nominal shear for an area
excessively narrow canoe making paddling simulating a male paddler’s knee to govern concrete
uncomfortable and more difficult than necessary. The strengths for mix design.
width of 33 inches was decided upon after taking The team analyzed 36 half-foot cross sections
measurements of the width of most paddlers’ for the entire length of the canoe. Longitudinal shear
comfortable kneeling stance. The walls of the canoe and moment equations were inputted into MicrosoftⓇ
were flared out with a 6.25 percent slope to Excel (2016) and plotted into a diagram. The loading
accommodate construction of the canoe. The slope cases that were considered were the 2-person

1
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Hull Design and Structural Analysis

male/female races and 4-person coed races. VolCanoe The maximum tensile and compressive stresses
was simplified as a uniform beam with a conservative are analyzed as a simplified conservative cross section
weight of 300 pounds. The buoyancy force was comprised of three rectangles arranged into a “U-
represented as a linearly distributed load that is equal shape” due to the complexity of VolCanoe’s cross
and opposite to the total weight of the system of the sectional curves. The compressive and tensile stresses
loading case being analyzed. The paddlers for the 2- are calculated using the location of the centroid of the
person and the 4-person races were assumed as a simplified cross section, moment of inertia, and the
conservative 180 pound point load placed along the maximum moment calculated from all loading cases.
length of the canoe. An example of the 4-person The results of the stresses for all loading cases are
loading scenario is shown in Figure 2. organized into Table 4 shown below.

Table 4: Structural Analysis Results

Loading 2-Person 4-Person Transportation/
Case Race Race Canoe Stand
Maximum
4,320 lb-in 4,320 lb-in 472 lb-in
Moment
Compressive
38.5 psi 38.5 psi 4.2 psi
Stress
Tensile
20.2 psi 20.2 psi 2.2 psi
Stress

Figure 2: Simplified Beam Analysis of 4-Person Racing Scenario The nominal shear was analyzed as a 4 inch by
4 inch area with a thickness of ⅝ inch for a two-way
Various placement scenarios of the paddlers slab to mimic a 200 pound male paddler’s knee during
were considered before finalizing each paddler’s racing. The equation for nominal shear is governed by
location during racing. The team determined the most the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-14) Building
conservative analysis occurs when the paddlers are Code. The compressive strength of our concrete
positioned 6 feet from the bow and stern of the canoe cylinders is used in this calculation as well as a
for the 2-person race. Paddlers will be placed at 3 feet lightweight concrete factor. This value was calculated
intervals from the center of the canoe to the bow or to be 1,095.5 pounds without regards to the layers of
stern for the 4-person races. The moment diagram for mesh reinforcement.
each scenario can be seen in Figure 3 below. The values obtained from the compressive
stress, tensile stress, and nominal shear justifies the
exclusion of post tensioning reinforcement from
VolCanoe’s design. To air on the side of precaution, the
team decided to design concrete mixes that would
account for the absence of post tensioning. To achieve
this goal, the team introduced innovative and stronger
volcanic aggregates that have not been used before in
previous NAU concrete canoe teams.

Figure 3: Comparison of Loading Scenarios

2
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Development and Testing

The primary goals of VolCanoe’s development fly ash and natural pozzolan allows the concrete mix to
and testing are to develop several mixes that reduce the utilize 36 percent less Portland cement, which
overall weight of the canoe and improve concrete ultimately produces a lighter oven-dry unit weight. The
strength. To accomplish these goals, the mix team aggregate baseline consists of Trinity expanded clay
tested a variety of new materials and admixtures. shale, Poraver®, and pumice. Other baseline materials
Notable achievements for NAU Concrete Canoe teams include a high-range water reducer, a shrinkage
reducer, an air-entrainer, a retarder, MasterFiber® 100,
within the last three years, Paddlegonia produced the
and water. Due to the complexity of the mix, only one
greatest concrete strengths and Canoopa produced
material was altered and tested at a time. Multiple
lighter oven-dry unit weights. As such, a baseline samples from each mix were tested in accordance with
concrete mix was implemented using the same ASTM C109 and ASTM C496 to ensure accurate
materials as Paddlegonia and Canoopa. After testing results. Final compressive results were tested according
commenced, procurement of half inch pumice to ASTM C39. The standardized testing process,
aggregate was available through Arrow Redi, a local coupled with careful quality control, led to the efficient
cement plant. Pumice aggregate was procured because testing of concrete mixes. To ensure safety, captains
it was discovered that the smaller particle sizes of wore gloves, particle masks, and safety glasses
Poraver® utilized in Paddlegonia and Canoopa were whenever batching and testing concrete (ASTM C109,
not compliant with the 2019 NCCC Rules and ASTM C39).
Regulations (ASCE 2019). As a result, the pumice from Secondary goals of VolCanoe are to improve
the durability of the canoe, improve concrete
Arrow Redi Cement Plant was crushed down to a
workability, and reinforce green building principles
quarter inch, an eighth of an inch, and fine sand at FNF and sustainability. This is accomplished by
Construction in Tempe, Arizona. Once the material incorporating Ultra-Lightweight Foamed Recycled
was sieved and washed, the material was implemented Glass (UL-FGA) from Aeroaggregates®, expanded
into the mix. Pumice allows the mix to have better shale from Utelite Corporation, and EPS foam beads
gradation than in previous years, which allows for from EnStyro. These innovative aggregates improve
better cement to aggregate bonding. The improved concrete strength, dry-unit weight, workability, and
bonding strength improves load transfers from the promote green and sustainable building as UL-FGA
cement to the aggregate. and EPS foam are recycled materials. Additionally,
The Utelite’s expanded shale is a natural material and can
cementitious be used as a biodegradable backfill for plants. It is
baseline mix is important to note that UL-FGA is also 85-90 percent
comprised of a lighter than other quarried aggregates, resulting in a
mixture of lighter oven-dry unit weight. Additionally, the
Paddlegonia and incorporation of polymers and latex admixtures
Canoopa. The increase the strength of concrete. Modifier A™/NA
cementitious from Trinseo, as well as Rovene 4040 and Tylac 4193
baseline mix from Mallard Creek Polymers are incorporated to the
consists of 65 mix in order to improve bonding between cement and
percent Type 1 aggregates, which also improvs the strength and
Portland cement, durability of the concrete. In addition, MasterFiber®
14 percent MAC Matrix fibers from BASF and 8 mm PVA fibers
natural pozzolan, were tested in mixes and produced favorable results in
and 21 percent of strength and durability. A crystalline waterproofing
Class F fly ash. powder (MasterLife® D300) from BASF is also added
The inclusion of Figure 4: Sieving Crushed Pumice to the mix in order to prevent capillary action in the
Aggregate

3
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Development and Testing

pores of the pumice and recycled glass aggregates. Aggregate proportion is an important detail of
These materials and admixtures are used in the the mix because the team opted for maximum cement
structural and finishing layers of the canoe in order to to aggregate bonding for maximum load transfer from
provide additional strength and durability to the canoe. the cement to the aggregates. As a result, many
Prior to the baseline mix design, research on different aggregate proportions are considered and
different materials and previous successful canoe mix tested. At first, 59 percent by volume of aggregates are
designs was performed to ensure that a quality mix can composed of EPS foam, 6 percent by volume of total
be created. After each mix, 7-day samples are tested to aggregate is composed of the various pumice particle
determine if the desired compressive strength and unit sizes seen in Table 5, 19 percent by volume of total
weight are met per ASTM C19 and ASTM C138. If the aggregate is composed of the various UL-FGA particle
7-day samples met the desired properties, a tensile test sizes seen in Table 5, and 17 percent by volume of total
and final compression test were completed at 21 and 28 aggregate is composed of Poraver®. This initial mix
days. If the mix did not meet expectations at 7 days, the provided a dry unit weight range between 47-60 pounds
mix is modified. As with Canoopa, VolCanoe per cubic foot (lb/ft3) and compressive strengths around
developed a unit weight calculator in Microsoft Excel 1,300 psi. While the unit weight and strength values are
to determine the dry unit weight before trial mixing. acceptable, the tensile strength for this mix is below
This aided in refining the mix design. The ASTM C330 200 psi which is not a desirable strength for the mix
compliant aggregates used in each mix design are design team as it did not meet minimum strengths
Poraver®, pumice, and Utelite material. according to our structural analysis. To increase the
The chosen admixtures are added to help tensile strength of the mix, additional aggregate sources
improve the workability of the concrete to ease need to be introduced to the mix. At this point, Utelite
constructability, improve bonding and adhesion of expanded shale is introduced to the mixes in order to
cement to the aggregates, and improve the strength of increase tensile strength. The team tested Utelite in
the concrete. The water reducer is used to create a mix compression samples and found that concrete
with a low slump (ASTM C143). Low slumps allowed containing Utelite is 51 percent stronger in tension than
for easier placement on the canoe mold. In order to without the aggregate. In addition, the team discovered
refine slump issues, the volume of the water reducer that Utelite expanded shale is also 46 percent stronger
increased to allow for better workability. The water in compression than that of Canoopa’s mix with Trinity
reducer was increased rather than increasing the #1 sand. This data, coupled with Utelite’s sustainability
cement ratio to avoid making the canoe heavier. The as a biodegradable backfill for plants, led the team to
shrinkage reducer is used to prevent shrinkage cracks use Utelite in the structural and finishing mixes as an
from appearing on the canoe during the curing process. ASTM C330 aggregate. After additional testing and the
Shrinkage reducer also aids in keeping the concrete refinement of minor aggregate proportions, the desired
durable and maintain strength as less voids are present properties of the concrete is achieved. The dry unit
in the concrete. A set retarder is used to allow the team weights ranged between 45-55 pcf, the compressive
more time to place the concrete in case delays persist and flexural strengths are between 1,300-1,500 psi, and
in placing the various layers on the mold. The team the tensile strength is between 250 psi and 350 psi. The
eliminated air-entrainer in the mix, similar to Canoopa, properties of the aggregate are shown on the next page
because batch trials yielded low unit weights and the in Table 5. Two final mixes were chosen after testing
team did not want to lose additional strength in the 24 different mix designs for compressive strength,
concrete. VolCanoe’s weakest mix has a compressive tensile strength, and slump. The components of each
strength of 1,950 pounds per square inch (psi) and a mix can be seen in Appendix B. Aggregate proportion
tensile strength of 270 psi (ASTM C496). These properties of each mix can be seen in Table 5.
strengths exceed the structural analysis requirements of
134.8 psi compressive strength and 202.1 psi tensile
strength.

4
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Development and Testing

due to rapid drying shrinkage and create the lightest
Table 5: Finishing Mix Aggregate Proportions canoe possible. This curing process resulted in a low
Specific Absorption unit weight and high compressive, flexural, and tensile
Aggregate Gravity (%) strengths.
Poraver® 1.0-2.0 mm 0.40 20.0
Reinforcement
Pumice 4.76-6.35 mm 2.35 65.0
The team decided the primary reinforcement
Pumice 2.89-3.36 mm 2.35 65.0
will be mesh for VolCanoe. The team needed a
Pumice 0.07-0.84 mm 2.35 65.0
reinforcement scheme strong enough to eliminate the
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 4.76-6.35 mm 0.38 64.0 need for post-tensioning cables as it increases wall
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 2.89-3.36 mm 0.38 64.0 thickness. Three mesh reinforcements were considered,
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 0.07-0.84 mm 0.38 64.0 fiberglass mesh, carbon fiber mesh, and basalt mesh.
EnStyro EPS Foam Beads 2.89-3.36 mm 0.01 4.0 Carbon fiber mesh had the highest tensile strength, but
Utelite Fines 0.84-4.76 mm 1.62 18.9 was the most expensive option. Basalt mesh had tensile
Utelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30 mm 1.62 18.9 strengths lower than carbon fiber, but higher than
fiberglass mesh, as well as greater flexural resistance
The pumice aggregate, the Poraver®, and the
than carbon fiber mesh and fiberglass mesh. Flexural
Utelite expanded shale are ASTM C330 compliant and
help achieve the 25% aggregate by volume regulation. and shear strength are the most critical factors, and
The remaining volume of each mix is comprosed of the basalt mesh performed the best and it is cost effective
solids from admixtures, fibers, cementitious materials, for the team. Two layers of mesh were utilized in the
and non-ASTM C330 aggregates. Although the mixes canoe. The first layer is a 5 inch wide spine that runs
have similar proportions of material, the greatest the entire length of VolCanoe. This layer’s primary
difference is the proportion of the different sizes of function is to resist the flexural loads during racing
larger aggregate (2.38 mm - 6.35 mm). The finishing conditions. The second layer resists nominal shear
mix incorporates a larger percentage of finer sized forces and is composed of basalt mesh sections that
aggregates, while the structural mix utilizes a greater spans across the inner cross section, overlapped 4
percentage of larger aggregate sizes and Utelite inches between sections. The Basalt mesh has a percent
material. open area of 67.9 percent and the total thickness of the
Curing reinforcement layers is 10.67 percent of the hull
After establishing VolCanoe’s mix, the team
thickness.
focused on creating a curing process that would allow
the concrete to reach its highest possible strength and
reduce the canoe’s weight. The curing process began
with a 3-hour heated dry cure. Afterwords, the canoe
wet cured for 14 days in a controlled curing chamber
with a temperature of 73°F (ASTM C192) and 98
percent humidity to reduce the free water on the
concrete surface. This allows the concrete to harden
and hydrate at a controlled rate. This process of
applying moisture and heat in a controlled environment
reduces the probability of micro-cracks forming on the
surface of the concrete. Finally, the canoe dry cured for
seven days at 80° F to remove the remaining moisture
from the canoe. This 28-day curing procedure was
Figure 5: VolCanoe Cross-Section
implemented in order to minimize failure and cracks
1

5
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Construction
The primary goal for the construction process glue. Once all the
was to successfully implement quality control cross sections were
measures to ensure the intended design was carried out glued and run through
as closely as possible throughout fabrication. Previous the steel rods, the rods
concrete canoe teams have suggested concrete were tightened to
placement was problematic and thickness was difficult compress the cross
to gage when using a male mold. Additionally, sanding sections together and
the exterior of the canoe was extremely time keep them as flush as
consuming and not ideal for the overall aesthetics of the possible (Figure 6).
canoe. As such, VolCanoe implemented a female mold Once the glue was left Figure 7: Shadow Sanding of Mold
for the first time since 2014’s Spirit. The mold was to dry for 24 hours, the
designed in SolidWorksⓇ (2018) to be 18 feet in length, mold was shadow
33 inches at the maximum width, and 16 inches at the sanded (Figure 7) and
maximum height. sealed after the cross
To construct the mold, 92 cross sections of the sections were
SolidWorksⓇ (2018) model were sent to XY Corp for assembled to provide
fabrication into Styrofoam cross sections. The material the smoothest surface
of the mold was chosen to be Styrofoam because it was for concrete
the most economical material which could be placement. This also
fabricated via a Computer Numeric Control (CNC) prevented any seepage
Figure 8: Flex Seal Applied on
machine. The mold’s cross sections were fabricated of material into the
Mold
utilizing a CNC machine because it was the most mold (Figure 8).
accessible fabrication option which provided the Additional quality control measures were taken
greatest accuracy. The thickness of the cross sections to improve the concrete mixing process and ultimately
increase consistency in results. All mixing was
varied depending on how drastically the canoe’s slope
conducted by weighing materials on a scale and then
changed throughout the body of the canoe. The ends of
mixing batches in 5-gallon buckets with a power drill
the canoe were printed into one-inch cross sections, and a mixing attachment. Batches were mixed in 5-
while the body of the canoe printed into four-inch cross gallon buckets with power tools instead of hand mixing
sections. For Canoopa, the cross sections of the male in tubs because losses were comparable, while the
mold were held together by a single steel rod running amount of time it took to mix was reduced drastically.
through the middle As well, a power drill was used to mix batches because
of the mold. This it allowed for uniform mixing of aggregates, fibers,
method was admixtures, water, and cementitious materials. The
unfeasible for a mixing procedure included separating the aggregate
female mold. and MasterFiber® MAC Matrix fibers from the
Instead, the cross cementitious material at the beginning of the mix
sections’ corners process to allow for the proper aggregate water to be
added. Water was added to the aggregate first to allow
were drilled into and
the aggregate to absorb the necessary water and allow
four steel rods were
for more free water to be added to the cementitious
run through the materials. Free water is the water that is added to allow
mold. In addition, the for the hydration process to commence. The
cross sections were Figure 6: Mold Construction in
coated in heavy duty Progress

6
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Construction
cementitious materials were then mixed together and 10). Lastly, the final
added into the mix with water added shortly after. basalt mesh
Admixtures such as set retarder, shrinkage reducer, reinforcement was
water reducer, polymers, and latex were then added to placed throughout the
the mix at the same time as the free water was body of the canoe and
introduced. For the colored mixes, a pigmented covered by two, 1/8th
admixture was added at this point along with the rest of
inch interior red,
the additional water. Finally, the 8 millimeter PVA
finishing layers (Figure
fibers were added to reduce the cracking and add
durability to the concrete. The 8 mm PVA fibers were 11). The 1/8th inch
added last to the mix in order to reduce clumping of the rubber thickness
fibers and ensuring their distribution throughout the gauges and painted
mixture. Lastly, to achieve the desired consistency of nails were utilized for
the concrete, the concrete was mixed via drum mixers. each layer mentioned. Figure 10: Placement of Spine and
Structural Layer
The mixing procedure was found to be effective and
produce concrete that was homogeneous with minimal
clumps of fiber or cement.
Once the concrete was properly mixed, the
concrete was hand placed onto the female mold. The
mold had 1/8th inch rubber thickness gauges nailed
every 6 inches. The exterior black, finishing layer of
concrete was placed to be flush with the thickness
gauges. Once the thickness gauges were removed and
replaced with concrete
(Figure 9), the first layer
was checked by our Figure 11: Body Reinforcement and Interior Finishing Layer
quality control team. The Once the final finishing layer of concrete was
quality control team placed, the curing chamber was assembled through one
would check the inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes, elbow and tee
thickness of the canoe connections, plastic, duct tape, Velcro, and
using nails which were humidifiers, shown in Figure 12 below. Four
painted different colors humidifiers were
at each 1/8th of an inch placed on each
interval. The nails were Figure 9: Exterior Finishing corner of the
an additional quality control measure implemented to mold. The
ensure the areas in between the rubber gauges were a plastic covered
uniform thickness. While the rubber thickness gauges the PVC pipe
allowed the team to check each layer’s thickness was and was taped
an eighth of an inch, the painted nails also provided a onto the concrete
means to check the overall thickness of the canoe after floor, and Velcro
each layer was placed. Following, an additional 1/8th was used to
layer of exterior black, finishing layer was placed create a door to Figure 12: Construction of Curing
before placing the basalt mesh reinforcement spine in enter the curing Chamber
the canoe and 1/4th inch of structural concrete (Figure chamber.

7
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Project and Quality Management

After consulting with technical advisors and project’s available funds were not exceeded. The total
previous concrete canoe participants, the three main budget was determined to be $6,500. However, the
goals for VolCanoe’s Project Management were project’s total cost was estimated at $6,180, as seen in
established: increase sponsor funding and donated Figure 14.
materials, expand community involvement, and
establish a feasible project schedule.
Sponsor funding was successfully increased by Total Cost: $6,180
implementing diverse fundraising and resource $3,980
$4,000
allocation techniques. First, team captains established a $3,500
professional template used to increase sponsorship $3,000
awareness. The template was then presented and $2,500
distributed at NAU ASCE meetings to student $2,000
$1,200 $1,000
members who were willing to reach out to family $1,500
$1,000
members and/or companies who they believe may be
$500
interested in sponsorship. Fundraisers at local $-
restaurants were created to expand community TRANSPORT MATERIALS CONFERENCE
awareness while also creating fundraising
opportunities. Community awareness was further Figure 14: Summary of Project Cost
achieved by setting up informational booths at each VolCanoe was able to stay within budget by
fundraising event displaying Canooopa’s cross section. emphasizing resource management. Resource
VolCanoe’s captains also volunteered to speak in a management included creating connections with
local kindergarten fieldtrip through the NAU vendors to increase the amount of donated materials
engineering department. In Figure 13, VolCanoe’s mix available for the mix design and construction. As a
design captain prepares to demonstrate to result, the team received approximately $1,230 worth
kindergarteners the difference between a concrete of donated materials, seen in Table 6. Similarly, Table
cylinder that floats and one that does not. 7 breaks down the monetary value of purchased
materials. By decreasing the amount of purchased
materials, the team was able to allocate fundraised
funds towards the construction of a practice canoe.
Table 6: Monetary Value of Donated Material
Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Gray Portland Cement Type I 188.00 lbs $0.20/lbs $37.60
1/2" Pumice Aggregate 21.00 ft3 $12.00/ft3 $252.00
MasterGlenium 7500 1.00 gal $25.00/gal $25.00
MasterColor Black 1.00 gal $25.00/gal $25.00
MasterColor Red 1.00 gal $25.00/gal $25.00
MasterFiber MAC Matrix 9.00 lbs $12.00/lbs $108.00
Sealant 5.00 gal $12.50/gal $62.50
Figure 13: Kindergarteners’ Fieldtrip to NAU
Further, budget management was achieved by MasterLife D300 25.00 lbs $5.00/lbs $125.00

monitoring funds closely via a MicrosoftⓇ Excel Modified A/NA Latex 1.00 gal $15.00/gal $15.00
spreadsheet which clearly identified the budget’s Tylac 4193 1.00 gal $15.00/gal $15.00
progress throughout the project, marking all donations Rovene 4040 1.00 gal $15.00/gal $15.00
and expenditures. The budget was addressed at each Ultra-Lightweight Foamed
21.00 ft3 $15.00/ft3 $315.00
Recycled Glass Aggregate
team meeting, and receipts were updated onto the
Material Crushing 42.00 ft3 $5.00/ft3 $210.00
MicrosoftⓇ Excel spreadsheet weekly, ensuring the
Total Value for Materials $1,230

8
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Project and Quality Management

After establishing ambitious milestones and
Table 7: Monetary Value of Purchased Materials assessing feasibility, the preliminary schedule was
Unit Total created. Ultimately, VolCanoe’s goal was to complete
Material Quantity
Cost Cost
Threaded Rod , Washers, Nuts Varies Varies $100
pour day as early as possible. However, pour day was
Screws, Wood, Flex Seal, PVC delayed by about a month primarily due to unforeseen
Varies Varies $250.00 challenges in mold fabrication and mixture design.
Pipe
Poraver 1.0-2.0 mm 38 lbs $0.70/lbs $27.00 NAU had difficulty finding a vendor who would be
Mold Fabrication 2 molds Varies $1,800.00 willing to CNC the canoe’s female mold within the
Basalt Reinforcing Mesh 225 m2 $2.00/m2 $450.00
Poraver 1-2 mm 58 lbs $1.00/lbs $58.00 budget’s limits and within reasonable proximity to
Pumice Samples 8 lbs Varies $65.00 Flagstaff. Once a vendor was established in Palm
Total Value for Purchased Materials $2,750 Springs, California, additional safety measures had to
Further, to gain economic sustainability, post be taken before the mold could be transported. Safety
tensioning was eliminated. The materials chosen for the measures included certifying drivers through NAU,
mix design and reinforcement took both economic and taking a defensive driver course, and filling out proper
environmental sustainability into consideration documentation to access NAU vehicles.
through the use of basalt mesh reinforcement, recycled The final mix design was delayed
foam glass aggregate, recycled EPS foam, natural
approximately two months due to an underestimation
pumice, and shale in the mix design.
of materials needed for the final canoe. The material
Before implementing scheduling, the scope of
the project was established by clearly identifying the was ordered using the volume provided from the
major tasks and subtasks encompassing the project. SolidWorksⓇ (2018) model with a 20 percent factor of
The scope was created after a thorough review of the safety. After the construction of the practice canoe, the
NCCC 2019 rules during bi-weekly team meetings volume of concrete used was larger than the value
beginning in early September. Additionally, a Quality calculated via SolidWorksⓇ (2018). Consulting with
Control and Assurance (QC/QA) role was established previous NAU canoe teams, it was determined a 40
between the team to ensure the scope was accurately percent factor of safety was necessary when using the
and completely understood. Risk management was
largely focused on the quality control during volume provided by SolidWorksⓇ (2018). As a result,
construction. To mitigate the risks associated with the mix design had to be redesigned to ensure the
construction, a half-sized practice canoe was remaining material available would be sufficient for the
constructed to identify potential errors in the final volume of the final canoe and cross section. Because
canoe’s construction. The total hours allocated for each VolCanoe’s preliminary schedule was aggressive, a 28-
major milestone are summarized in Figure 15. day cure for the final canoe will still be met. Table 8
summarizes VolCanoe’s milestones and their variance
Total Hours: 1,328 with respect to the end dates established from the
Academics
Mixture Design 8% preliminary schedule to the final schedule.
Development
23% Finishing
6% Table 8: Project Milestones
Schedule
Structural Milestone Reason
Variance
Analysis
6% Mix Design -51 days Material procurement
Canoe
Construction Reinforcement Design +3 days N/A
Hull Design
8% 28% Changes in desired
Hull Design -38 days
Project Mold volume
Management Construction Construction -27 days Mold fabrication
15% 6%
Competition N/A N/A
Figure 15: Total Hours Allocated

9
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Organization Chart
Virgilio Bareng Ernesto Mauricio
(Sr) (Sr)

Captain Captain
Structural Lead Mix Design Lead
Lead for the structural analysis, assisted Lead the design and draft of canoe mold,
with reinforcement and hull design plan, designed and tested reinforcement plan,
construction plan, paddling captain, and drafted final construction drawing, mold
assisted with other tasks as needed. construction, and assisted with other
tasks as needed.

Allyson Marnocha Trevor Mahoney

(Sr) (Sr)

Project Manager Reinforcement Lead

Lead for team and project scheduling, Lead the design and draft of canoe mold,
graphic design, fundraising, finances, designed and tested reinforcement plan,
and assisted in other tasks as needed. drafted final construction drawing, mold
construction, and assisted with other
2018-2019 Mentees tasks as needed.
Kylie Dykstra (Sr.)
Maxx Townsend (Sr.)
Jennifer Chavez
Celine Bannourah (Jr.) (Sr)
Nick Campbell (Jr.)
Sam Cole (Jr.)
Ally Fedor (Jr.)
Logan Grijalva (Jr.)
Stephan Henderson (Jr.) Quality
Kristen Rassmussen (Jr.)
Conrad Senior (Jr.)
Assurance/Control
Carl Wilson (Jr.) Lead for the quality assurance and
control of construction, head editor,
Russell Collins (So.)
ensured all deliverables follow the 2018
Marie Cook (So.)
NCCC Rules and Regulations, and
Hannah Fischer (So.)
assisted with other tasks as needed.
Stephanie Seymour (So.)
Ryan Wassenburg (So.)

ASCE registered participant Current Paddler # of years on previous NAU Canoe teams
10
Northern Arizona University
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Total Slack Aug '18 Sep '18 Oct '18 Nov '18 Dec '18 Jan '19 Feb '19 Mar '19 Apr '19
15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7 14
1 Task 1.0: Mix Design 108 days Sat 9/1/18 Thu 1/24/19 0 days
2 1.1 Material Research 74 days Sat 9/1/18 Mon 12/10/18 0 days
3 1.1.1 Aggregates 14 days Sat 9/1/18 Wed 9/19/18 0 days
4 1.1.2 Material Procurement 60 days Thu 9/20/18 Mon 12/10/18 3 0 days
5 1.1.3 Develop Initial Mix Design 50 days Mon 10/1/18 Wed 12/5/18 4SS+7 days 0 days
6 1.2 Concrete Testing 37 days Thu 12/6/18 Thu 1/24/19 0 days
7 1.2.1 Slump Test 2 days Thu 12/6/18 Fri 12/7/18 5 0 days
8 1.2.2 Cylinder Sample Collection 2 days Thu 12/6/18 Fri 12/7/18 7SS 0 days
9 1.2.3 Compressive Strength Test 28 days Wed 12/19/18 Thu 1/24/19 8FS+7 days 0 days
10 1.2.4 Split Tensile Strength Test 2 days Wed 12/19/18 Thu 12/20/18 8FS+7 days 0 days
11 1.2.5 Dry Unit Weight 2 days Wed 12/19/18 Thu 12/20/18 8FS+7 days 0 days
12 1.3 Refining Initial Mix Design 14 days Fri 12/21/18 Wed 1/9/19 0 days
13 1.3.1 Creating Decision Matrix for Mix Design 7 days Fri 12/21/18 Mon 12/31/18 11 0 days
14 1.3.2 Finalizing Competition Mix Deliverables 14 days Fri 12/21/18 Wed 1/9/19 11 0 days
15 Task 2.0: Reinforcement Design 46 days Mon 10/1/18 Fri 11/30/18 0 days
16 2.1 Testing of Reinforcement Materials 28 days Mon 10/1/18 Wed 11/7/18 0 days
17 2.1.1 Thickness 3 days Mon 10/1/18 Wed 10/3/18 5SS 0 days
18 2.1.2 Mechanical Bonding Test 21 days Wed 10/10/18 Wed 11/7/18 17FS+3 days 0 days
19 2.1.3 Determine Percent Open Area 12 days Thu 10/4/18 Fri 10/19/18 17 0 days
20 2.2 Reinforcement Selection 2 days Mon 10/22/18 Tue 10/23/18 19 0 days
21 2.3 Concrete Pre-Stressing Assessment 18 days Thu 11/8/18 Fri 11/30/18 0 days
22 2.3.1 Reinforcement Strength 14 days Thu 11/8/18 Mon 11/26/18 18 0 days
23 2.3.2 Risk/Benefit Analysis 2 days Tue 11/27/18 Wed 11/28/18 22 0 days
24 2.3.3 Determining Pre-Stressing Arrangement and Forces 2 days Thu 11/29/18 Fri 11/30/18 23 0 days
25 2.4 Reinforcing Mix Materials 2 days Thu 11/29/18 Fri 11/30/18 23 0 days
26 Task 3.0: Hull Design 92 days Thu 10/4/18 Sat 2/2/19 0 days
27 3.1 Draft Hull in SolidWorks 14 days Thu 10/4/18 Tue 10/23/18 17 0 days
28 3.2 Structural Analysis 7 days Wed 10/24/18 Thu 11/1/18 27 0 days
29 3.3 Mold Design 7 days Fri 11/2/18 Mon 11/12/18 28 0 days
30 3.4 Mold Procurement 64 days Tue 11/13/18 Sat 2/2/19 29 0 days
31 Task 4.0: Construction 98 days Sat 11/24/18 Tue 4/2/19 5 days
32 4.1 Construction Table 28 days Sat 11/24/18 Mon 12/31/18 28SS 0 days
33 4.2 Practice Canoe 20 days Tue 1/8/19 Thu 4/11/19 32 0 days
34 4.3 Final Canoe 41 days Wed 2/6/19 Tue 4/2/19 5 days
35 4.3.1 Material Set Up 3 days Wed 2/6/19 Fri 2/8/19 33FS+19 days 0 days
36 4.3.2 Placement 1 day Sat 2/9/19 Sat 2/9/19 35 0 days
37 4.3.3 Curing 28 days Sat 2/9/19 Tue 3/19/19 36SS 0 days
38 4.3.4 Finishing 8 days Wed 3/20/19 Fri 3/29/19 37 5 days
39 4.3.5 Lettering 2 days Mon 4/1/19 Tue 4/2/19 38 5 days
40 Task 5.0: Competition Deliverables 132 days Mon 10/15/18 Sat 4/6/19 2 days
41 5.1 Acknowledgment Form and Preliminary Schedule 14 days Mon 10/15/18 Thu 11/1/18 0 days
42 5.2 Project Overview and Technical Addendum 30 days Wed 1/23/19 Thu 2/28/19 41,14 0 days
43 5.3 Transportation 1 day Wed 4/3/19 Wed 4/3/19 42FS+20 days,39 5 days
44 5.4 Aesthetics 33 days Tue 2/19/19 Thu 4/4/19 4 days
45 5.4.1 Canoe Stand 12 days Wed 3/20/19 Thu 4/4/19 37 4 days
46 5.4.2 Cutaway Section 28 days Tue 2/19/19 Thu 3/28/19 37SS+7 days 9 days
47 5.4.3 Tabletop Display 9 days Mon 3/25/19 Thu 4/4/19 45SS+3 days 4 days
48 5.5 Design Paper 25 days Mon 2/4/19 Thu 3/7/19 14 3 days
49 5.6 Oral Presentation 21 days Mon 3/11/19 Sat 4/6/19 48 2 days
50 Task 6.0: Project Management 191 days Wed 7/25/18 Sat 4/6/19 2 days
51 6.1 Fundraising 158 days Sat 9/1/18 Mon 4/1/19 7 days
52 6.2 Meetings 187 days? Wed 7/25/18 Tue 4/2/19 6 days?
53 6.3 Schedule Management 187 days Mon 7/30/18 Fri 4/5/19 3 days
54 6.4 Safety Training 28 days Thu 10/4/18 Mon 11/12/18 0 days
55 Task 7.0: Attend PSWC at Cal Poly SLO 6 days Wed 4/3/19 Tue 4/9/19 48,49FF 0 days

Project: Critical Path Schedule Task Summary Project Summary Critical Critical Split Progress
Date: Wed 3/6/19

Page 1

11
12
 VolCanoe

Appendix A - References
ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee. (2014). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.”
ACI 318-14. Farmington Hills, MI.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2019). “2019 ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition
Rules and Regulations.” ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition. <https://www.asce.org/concrete-canoe-
rules-regulations/> (Sept. 5, 2018).

ASTM International. (2015). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete.” ASTM
C143/C143M. West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM International. (2017). “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens.” ASTM C496/C496M. West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM International. (2018a). “Standard for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field.” ASTM
C31/C31M. West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM International. (2018). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens.” ASTM C39/C39M. West Conshohocken, PA.

Autodesk® AutoCAD® (2019). Computer Software. Autodesk, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Bluebeam® Revu® (2019). Computer Software. Bluebeam Inc., Pasadena, CA.

"Classification of Aggregates." (n.d.). Engr.psu.edu,

<https://www.engr.psu.edu/ce/courses/ce584/concrete/library/materials/aggregate/Classification%20of%20aggr
egates.htm> (Nov. 15, 2018).

Jolin, M., and Beaue, D. (2003). Understanding Wet-Mix Shotcrete: Mix Design, Specifications, and Placement.

McCormac, J., and Brown, R. (2009). Design of Reinforced Concrete. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Microsoft® Excel (2018). Computer Software. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

Microsoft® Project (2018). Computer Software. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

Microsoft® Word (2018). Computer Software. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

Northern Arizona University Concrete Canoe. (2014). Spirit, PSWC Concrete Canoe Competition Design Paper

Northern Arizona University Concrete Canoe. (2015). Dreadnoughtus, PSWC Concrete Canoe Competition
Design Paper.

Northern Arizona University Concrete Canoe. (2017). Paddlegonia, PSWC Concrete Canoe Competition
Design Paper.

Northern Arizona University Concrete Canoe. (2018). Canoopa, PSWC Concrete Canoe Competition Design
Paper.

A-1
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Appendix A - References
S. H. Hosmatka and M. L. Wilson. (2011). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Portland Cement
Associtation, Skokie, IL.

Solidworks® Education Edition (2018). Computer Software. Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation,
Waltham, MA.

Zemajtis, J. (2018). "Role of Concrete Curing". Cement.org, <https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-

technology/concrete-construction/curing-in-construction> (Oct. 13, 2018).

A-2
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Appendix B - Mixture Proportion

MIXTURE DESIGNATION: FINISHING MIX
CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount of CM (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
Cement, Gray Portland Type 1 3.15 2.56 504.00 Total Amount of
2.50 cementitious materials
SRMG Natural Pozzolan 0.90 140.00 656.60 lb/yd3
c/cm ratio
BASF MasterLife 300D 2.10 0.10 12.60 0.77

FIBERS
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount of Fibers (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
PVA Fiber 8mm 1.30 0.06 4.75 Total Amount of Fibers
Fiber 2 0.91 0.14 8.00 12.75 lb/yd3
AGGREGATES
ASTM Base Quantity (lb/yd3)
Abs
Aggregates C330* SGOD SGSSD Volume (ft3)
(%) OD SSD
Poraver® 1.0-2.0 mm* Yes 20.00 0.34 0.40 115.00 138.00 5.53
Pumice 4.76-6.35 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 30.00 49.50 0.34
Pumice 2.89-3.36 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 10.00 16.50 0.11
Pumice 0.07-0.84 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 45.00 74.25 0.51
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 4.76-6.35mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 15.00 24.60 1.04
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 2.89-3.36mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 20.00 32.80 1.38
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 0.07-0.84mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 50.00 82.00 3.46
EnStyro EPS Foam Beads 2.89- No 4.00 0.01 0.01 4.25 4.42 6.44
3.36mm
Utelite Fines 0.84-4.76 mm* Yes 18.90 1.36 1.62 65.00 77.29 0.76
Utelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30 mm* Yes 18.90 1.36 1.62 60.00 71.34 0.71
ADMIXTURES
Dosage
Admixture lb/gal (fl. oz / % Solids Amount of Water in Admixture (lb/yd3)
cwt)
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4040 8.42 5.00 14.00 2.19
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4193 8.39 12.00 26.00 4.12
Trinseo A/NA 8.76 8.00 51.00 1.69 Total Water from
MasterSet Delvo 9.93 8.00 52.00 1.65 Admixtures, ∑wadmx
MasterGlenium 7500 9.05 8.00 47.90 1.87 38.38 lb/yd3
MasterLife SRA 20 7.59 5.00 80.00 0.39
MasterColor Black 15.00 40.00 14.00 26.47
SOLIDS (LATEX, DYES, POWDERED ADMIXTURES, AND MINERAL FILLERS)
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
Trinseo A/NA 1.05 0.03 1.72 Total Solids from
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4040 1.01 0.03 1.76 Admixtures
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4193 1.01 0.03 1.79 9.58 lb/yd3

B-1
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Appendix B - Mixture Proportion

MasterColor Black 1.80 0.04 4.31
WATER
Amount (mass/volume) (lb/yd3) Volume (ft3)
3
Water, lb/yd w: 262.64 4.21
Total Free Water from All Aggregates, lb/yd 3
∑wfree: -149.70
Total Water from All Admixtures, lb/yd 3
∑wadmx: 38.38
3
Batch Water, lb/yd wbatch: 151.36
DENSITIES, AIR CONTENT, RATIOS AND SLUMP
cm fibers aggregates solids water Total
Mass of Concrete, M, (lb ) 656.60 12.75 454.25 9.58 262.64 ∑M:1,401.07
Absolute Volume of Concrete, V, (ft3) 3.56 0.20 16.20 0.13 4.21 ∑V:24.31
Theoretical Density, T, (=∑M / ∑V) 57.63 lb/ft 3
Air Content [= (T – D)/T x 100%] 9.97%
3
Measured Density, D 56.52 lb/ft Slump, Slump flow 5.50 in.
water/cement ratio, w/c: 0.52 water/cementitious material ratio, w/cm: 0.40

* Indicate if aggregate, other than manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres, is compliant with ASTM C330.

B-2
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Appendix B - Mixture Proportion

MIXTURE DESIGNATION: STRUCTURAL MIX
CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount of CM (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
Cement, Gray Portland Type 1 3.15 2.56 504.00 Total Amount of
2.50 cementitious materials
SRMG Natural Pozzolan 0.90 140.00 656.60 lb/yd3
c/cm ratio
BASF MasterLife 300D 2.10 0.10 12.60 0.77
FIBERS
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount of Fibers (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
PVA Fiber 8mm 1.30 0.07 6.00 Total Amount of Fibers
Fiber 2 0.91 0.14 8.00 14.00 lb/yd3
AGGREGATES
ASTM Base Quantity (lb/yd3)
C330 Abs
Aggregates SGOD SGSSD Volume (ft3)
* (%) OD SSD

Poraver® 1.0-2.0 mm* Yes 20.00 0.34 0.40 105.00 126.00 5.05
Pumice 4.76-6.35 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 60.00 99.00 0.68
Pumice 2.89-3.36 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 10.00 16.50 0.11
Pumice 0.07-0.84 mm* Yes 65.00 1.42 2.35 50.00 82.50 0.56
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 4.76-6.35mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 25.00 41.00 1.73
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 2.89-3.36mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 25.00 41.00 1.73
AeroAggregate UL-FGA 0.07-0.84mm No 64.00 0.23 0.38 30.00 49.20 2.07
EnStyro EPS Foam Beads 2.89- No 4.00 0.01 0.01 4.50 4.68 6.82
3.36mm
Utelite Fines 0.84-4.76 mm* Yes 18.90 1.36 1.62 75.00 89.18 0.88
Utelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30 mm* Yes 18.90 1.36 1.62 75.00 89.18 0.88
ADMIXTURES
Dosage
lb/gal
Admixture (fl. oz / % Solids Amount of Water in Admixture (lb/yd3)
cwt)
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4040 8.42 5.00 14.00 2.19
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4193 8.39 12.00 26.00 4.12
Trinseo A/NA 8.76 8.00 51.00 1.69 Total Water from
Admixtures, ∑wadmx
MasterSet Delvo 9.93 8.00 52.00 1.65 11.92 lb/yd3
MasterGlenium 7500 9.05 8.00 47.90 1.87
MasterLife SRA 20 7.59 5.00 80.00 0.39
SOLIDS (LATEX, DYES, POWDERED ADMIXTURES, AND MINERAL FILLERS)
Component Specific Gravity Volume (ft3) Amount (mass/volume) (lb/yd3)
Trinseo A/NA 1.05 0.03 1.72 Total Solids from
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4040 1.01 0.03 1.76 Admixtures
Mallard Creek Polymers Rovene 4193 1.01 0.03 1.79 5.27 lb/yd3

B-3
Northern Arizona University
 VolCanoe

Appendix B - Mixture Proportion

WATER
Amount (mass/volume) (lb/yd3) Volume (ft3)
3
Water, lb/yd w: 262.64 4.21
Total Free Water from All Aggregates, lb/yd 3
∑wfree: -170.03
Total Water from All Admixtures, lb/yd 3
∑wadmx: 11.92
3
Batch Water, lb/yd wbatch: 109.31
DENSITIES, AIR CONTENT, RATIOS AND SLUMP
cm fibers aggregates solids water Total
Mass of Concrete, M, (lb ) 656.60 14.00 499.50 5.27 262.64 ∑M:1,438.01
Absolute Volume of Concrete, V, (ft3) 3.56 0.21 16.44 0.12 4.21 ∑V:24.54
Theoretical Density, T, (=∑M / ∑V) 56.30 lb/ft 3
Air Content [= (T – D)/T x 100%] 13.05%
3
Measured Density, D 59.64 lb/ft Slump, Slump flow 5.00 in.
water/cement ratio, w/c: 0.52 water/cementitious material ratio, w/cm: 0.40

* Indicate if aggregate, other than manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres, is compliant with ASTM C330.

B-4
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
Cementitious Materials:
Mass = Given
MassType 1 Portland Cement = 504.00 lbs

MassClass N Natural pozzolan = 140.00 lbs

MassMasterLife® D300 = 12.60 lbs

∑MassCementitious = 656.60 lbs

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔
Volume =
𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

𝟓𝟎𝟒.𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
VolumeType 1 Portland Cement = = 2.56 ft3
𝟑.𝟏𝟓 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

𝟓𝟏𝟒𝟎.𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
VolumeClass N Natural pozzolan = = 0.79 ft3
𝟐.𝟓𝟎 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

𝟏𝟐.𝟔𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
VolumeMasterLife® D300 = = 0.10 ft3
𝟐.𝟏𝟎 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

∑VolumeCementitious = 3.45 ft3

Fibers:
Mass = Given

Mass8mm PVA = 4.75 lbs

MassMasterFiber® MAC360= 8.00 lbs

∑MassFibers = 12.75 lbs

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔
Volume =
𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

𝟒.𝟕𝟓 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Volume8mm PVA = = 0.06 ft3
𝟏.𝟑𝟎 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

𝟖.𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
VolumeMasterFiber® MAC360= = 0.14 ft3
𝟎.𝟗𝟏 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

∑VolumeFibers = 0.2 ft3

B-5
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
Aggregates:
Mass (WSSD) = Given

MassPoraver®1.0-2.0mm= 138.00 lbs

MassPumice 4.76-6.35mm= 49.50 lbs

MassPumice 2.38-3.36mm = 16.50 lbs

MassPumice 0.07-0.84mm = 74.25 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = 24.60 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = 32.80 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = 82.00 lbs

MassEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = 4.42 lbs

MassUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = 77.29 lbs

MassUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = 71.34 lbs

∑MassAggregates = 570.70 lbs

𝑾𝑺𝑺𝑫
Volume =
𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔/𝒇𝒕𝟑

VolumePoraver®1.0-2.0mm= = 5.53 ft3

. . /

.
VolumePumice 4.76-6.35mm= = 0.34 ft3
. . /

.
VolumePumice 2.38-3.36mm = = 0.11 ft3
. . /

.
VolumePumice 0.07-0.84mm = = 0.51 ft3
. . /

.
VolumeAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = = 1.04 ft3
. . /

.
VolumeAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = = 1.38 ft3
. . /

.
VolumeAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = = 3.46 ft3
. . /

B-6
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
.
VolumeEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = = 6.44 ft3
. . /

.
VolumeUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = = 0.76 ft3
. . /

.
VolumeUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = = 0.71 ft3
. . /

∑VolumeAggregates(SSD) = 20.27 ft3

Mass (WOD) = Given

MassPoraver®1.0-2.0mm= 115.00 lbs

MassPumice 4.76-6.35mm= 30.00 lbs

MassPumice 2.38-3.36mm = 10.00 lbs

MassPumice 0.07-0.84mm = 45.00 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = 15.00 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = 20.00 lbs

MassAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = 50.00 lbs

MassEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = 4.25 lbs

MassUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = 65.00 lbs

MassUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = 60.00 lbs

∑MassAggregates(OD) = 414.25 lbs

𝑾𝑺𝑺𝑫 𝑾𝑶𝑫
Absorbance (Abs) = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝑾𝑶𝑫

. .
AbsPoraver®1.0-2.0mm= ∗ 100% = 20.00%
.

. .
AbsPumice 4.76-6.35mm= ∗ 100% = 65.00%
.

. .
AbsPumice 2.38-3.36mm = ∗ 100% = 65.00%
.

B-7
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
. %
WPumice 4.76-6.35mm= 30.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 31.95 lbs
%

. %
WPumice 2.38-3.36mm = 10.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 10.65 lbs
%

. %
WPumice 0.07-0.84mm = 45.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 47.93 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = 15.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 15.15 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = 20.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 20.20 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = 50.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 50.50 lbs
%

. %
WEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = 4.25 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 4.27 lbs
%

. %
WUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = 65.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 67.99 lbs
%

. %
WUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = 60.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = 62.76 lbs
%

Moisture Content (MCfree) = MCTotal -Abs

MCPoraver®1.0-2.0mm= 0.50% - 20.00% = -19.50%

MCPumice 4.76-6.35mm= 6.50% - 65.00% = -59.50%

MCPumice 2.38-3.36mm = 6.50% - 65.00% = -59.50%

MCPumice 0.07-0.84mm = 6.50% - 65.00% = -59.50%

MCAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = 1.00% - 64.00% = -63.00%

MCAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = 1.00% - 64.00% = -63.00%

MCAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = 1.00% - 64.00% = -63.00%

MCEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = 0.50% - 4.00% = -3.50%

MCUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = 4.60% - 18.90% = -18.40%

MCUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = 4.60% - 18.90% = -18.40%

B-8
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
𝑴𝑪𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆
Free Water (wfree) = 𝑾𝑶𝑫 ∗ ( )
𝟏𝟎𝟎%

. %
WPoraver®1.0-2.0mm= 115.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ ( ) = -22.43 lbs
%

. %
WPumice 4.76-6.35mm= 30.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -17.85 lbs
%

. %
WPumice 2.38-3.36mm = 10.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -5.95 lbs
%

. %
WPumice 0.07-0.84mm = 45.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -26.78 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 4.76-6.35mm = 15.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -9.45 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 2.38-3.36mm = 20.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -12.60 lbs
%

. %
WAeroaggregate Recycled Foam Glass 0.07-0.84mm = 50.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -31.50 lbs
%

. %
WEPS Foam 2.38-4.76mm = 4.25 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -0.15 lbs
%

. %
WUtelite Fines 0.84-4.76mm = 65.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -11.96 lbs
%

. %
WUtelite #10 Mesh 0.07-0.30mm = 60.00 𝑙𝑏𝑠 ∗ (1 + ) = -11.04 lbs
%

∑Wfree = -149.70 lbs

Admixtures:
Dosage = Given
DosageMasterSet Delvo = 5

DosageMasterGlenium 7500 = 8

DosageRovene 4040 = 8

DosageTylac 4193 = 8

DosageTrinseo AN™/A = 8

B-9
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
DosageMasterLife SRA 035 = 5

DosageMasterColor Black = 40

Mass of Water from Admixtures:

𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒛 𝟏 𝒈𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Wadmix = dosage ( ) ∗ 𝒄𝒘𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒎 ∗ 𝒘𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 (%) ∗ ∗ 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒙.
𝒄𝒘𝒕 𝟏𝟐𝟖 𝒇𝒍 𝒐𝒛 𝒈𝒂𝒍

.
WMasterSet Delvo = 5 ( )∗ ∗ (100.00% − 14.00%) ∗ ∗ 9.93 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 2.19 lbs

.
WMasterGlenium 7500 = 8 ( )∗ ∗ (100.00% − 26.00%) ∗ ∗ 9.05 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 2.75 lbs

.
WMasterLife SRA 20 = 5 ( )∗ ∗ (100.00% − 8.00%) ∗ ∗ 7.59 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 1.79 lbs

∑MassWateradmixtures = 38.42 lbs

Mass of Solids from Admixtures:

.
WRovene 4040 = 8 ( )∗ ∗ (51.00%) ∗ ∗ 8.42 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 1.76 lbs

.
WTylac 4193 = 8 ( )∗ ∗ (52.00%) ∗ ∗ 8.39 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 1.79 lbs

.
WTrinseo AN™/A = 8 ( )∗ ∗ (47.90%) ∗ ∗ 8.76 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 1.72 lbs

.
WMasterColor Black = 40 ( )∗ ∗ (14.00%) ∗ ∗ 15 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑥. = 4.31 lbs

∑MassSolidsadmixtures = 9.58 lbs

Volume of Solids from Admixtures:

B-10
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒙 (𝒍𝒃𝒔)
Volumeadmixture = 𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒
𝒚𝒅𝟑

. ( )
VolumeRovene 4040 = = 0.03 ft3
. .

. ( )
Volumetylac 4193= = 0.03 ft3
. .

. ( )
VolumeTrinseo AN™/A = = 0.03 ft3
. .

. ( )
VolumeMasterColor Black= = 0.04 ft3
. .

∑VolumeSolidsadmixtures = 0.12 ft3

Water:
𝒘
MassWater = ∗ 𝒄𝒎
𝒄𝒎

Masswater = 0.40 ∗ 656.60 𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 262.64 lbs

Batch Water (Wbatch) = w+ (∑Wfree + ∑Wadmix)

Wbatch = 262.64 lbs + (-149.70 lbs + 38.42 lbs) = 151.36 lbs

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔𝑾𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓
Volume Water = 𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝑮𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒙 𝟔𝟐.𝟒
𝒚𝒅𝟑

.
Volume Water = = 4.21 ft3
. .

Concrete Analysis:
Densities:
∑Masses = MassConcrete = 1,388.60 lbs
∑Volumes = VolumeConcrete = 24.20 ft3
𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝟏,𝟑𝟖𝟖.𝟔𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Theoretical Desnity (T) = = 𝟑
= 57.38
𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝟐𝟒.𝟐𝟎 𝒇𝒕 𝒚𝒅𝟑
𝒍𝒃𝒔
Measured Density (D) = 51.43
𝒚𝒅𝟑
𝒍𝒃𝒔 𝒍𝒃𝒔 𝒍𝒃𝒔 𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝑻( 𝟑 ) 𝑫( 𝟑 ) 𝟓𝟕.𝟑𝟖( ) 𝟓𝟏.𝟒𝟑( )
𝒚𝒅 𝒚𝒅 𝒚𝒅𝟑 𝒚𝒅𝟑
Air Content = 𝒍𝒃𝒔 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 𝒍𝒃𝒔 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 10.37%
𝑻( ) 𝟓𝟕.𝟑𝟖( )
𝒚𝒅𝟑 𝒚𝒅𝟑

B-11
Northern Arizona University
Appendix B - Primary Mixture VolCanoe

Calculatoin
𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑 𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒆 ( ) 𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑 𝟐𝟒.𝟐𝟎 𝒇𝒕𝟑
𝒚𝒅𝟑
Air Content = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 10.37%
𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑 𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑

Important Ratios:
𝒄 𝟓𝟎𝟒.𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Cement/Cementitious Material: = = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟕
𝒄𝒎 𝟔𝟓𝟔.𝟔𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝒘 𝟐𝟔𝟐.𝟔𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Water/Cement: = = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟐
𝒄 𝟓𝟎𝟒.𝟎𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔
𝒘 𝟐𝟔𝟐.𝟔𝟒 𝒍𝒃𝒔
Water/ Cementitious Material: = = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟎
𝒄𝒎 𝟔𝟓𝟔.𝟔𝟎 𝒍𝒃𝒔

Aggregate Ratio Check:

𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝒇𝒕𝟑 )
Aggregate Ratio (%) = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑
𝟐𝟎.𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑
Aggregate Ratio (%) = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 𝟕𝟓. 𝟎𝟕% > 25% ∴ Compliant
𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑

ASTM C330 Aggregate Ratio Check:

𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆𝑨𝑺𝑻𝑴 𝑪𝟑𝟑𝟎 𝑨𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝒇𝒕𝟑 )
VASTM C330 (%) = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒆 (𝒇𝒕𝟑 )
𝟕.𝟗𝟔 𝒇𝒕𝟑
Aggregate Ratio (%) = ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 𝟑𝟗. 𝟐𝟕% > 25% ∴ Compliant
𝟐𝟎.𝟐𝟕 𝒇𝒕𝟑

B-12
Northern Arizona University
Appendix C - Example Structural VolCanoe

Calculations
Known Values:
The 4-Person racing scenario is considered for the sample 2D structural calculations which include two male
and two female paddlers represented as 180lb point loads along VolCanoe’s length of 18ft. Other values
included into the analysis are shown under “Properties” to the right below.

Properties:
 VolCanoe length = 18 ft
 VolCanoe density = 59 pcf
 VolCanoe weight = 300 lbs
 VolCanoe thickness = 5/8 in

Assumptions:
1. VolCanoe is simplified into a beam.
2. The self-weight and the buoyant force of VolCanoe is represented as a uniformly distributed load.
3. Mesh reinforcement is neglected.
4. Cross-section is simplified to a “U-shape” comprised of three rectangles.

Centroid Calculation:

𝛴𝑦 𝐴 2(𝑦 𝑏 ℎ ) + (𝑦 𝑏 ℎ ) 2(8.375𝑖𝑛)(0.75𝑖𝑛)(15.25𝑖𝑛) + (0.375𝑖𝑛)(33𝑖𝑛)(0.75𝑖𝑛)

ȳ= = =
𝛴𝐴 (𝑏 ℎ ) + (𝑏 ℎ ) 2(0.75𝑖𝑛)(15.25𝑖𝑛) + (33𝑖𝑛)(0.75𝑖𝑛)

ȳ = 4.22 in

C-1
Northern Arizona University
Appendix C - Example Structural VolCanoe

Calculations
Moment of Inertia Calculations:
( . )( . )
𝐼 = =2 =2 Ix1 = 443.32 in4

( )( . )
𝐼 = = = Ix2 = 1.16 in4

𝐼 =𝐼 +𝐼 = 443.32𝑖𝑛 + 1.16𝑖𝑛 Ix = 444.48 in4

𝐼 = 𝐼 + 𝛴ȳ 𝐴 = 𝐼 + 2 ȳ 𝑏 ℎ + (ȳ 𝑏 ℎ )
= 444.48𝑖𝑛 + [2(4.155𝑖𝑛 )(0.7𝑖𝑛)(15.25𝑖𝑛) + (−3.845𝑖𝑛 )(33𝑖𝑛)(0.75𝑖𝑛)]
Ixx = 1178.97 in4

Calculating Moment Equations:

An example of the moment scenario is shown with the 4-Person race below.

Shear Comparison Diagram

200
150
100
50
V (lbs)

0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Canoe Length (ft)
4 Person 2-Person Transportation Buggie/Canoe Stand

C-2
Northern Arizona University
Appendix C - Example Structural VolCanoe

Calculations
Calculating Compressive and Tensile Stresses:
The maximum moment used for the calculation occurs during the 4-Perosn race scenario.
Mmax = 360 lb-ft = 4320 lb-in

𝑦 =ℎ−ȳ 𝑦 =ȳ
𝑀 𝑦 𝑀 𝑦
𝜎 = 𝜎 =
𝐼 𝐼
(4320𝑙𝑏 − 𝑖𝑛)(16𝑖𝑛 − 5.50𝑖𝑛) (4320𝑙𝑏 − 𝑖𝑛)(5.50𝑖𝑛)
𝜎 = 𝜎 =
1178.97𝑖𝑛 1178.97𝑖𝑛
σt = - 38.47 psi σb = 20.15 psi

All Loading Scenarios:

4-Person Races 2-Person Races

Transportation/Canoe Stand

Summary of Structural Analysis:

Table 4: Structural Analysis Results

Loading 2-Person 4-Person Transportation/
Case Race Race Canoe Stand
Maximum
4,320 lb-in 4,320 lb-in 472 lb-in
Moment
Compressive
38.5 psi 38.5 psi 4.2 psi
Stress
Tensile
20.2 psi 20.2 psi 2.2 psi
Stress

C-3
Northern Arizona University
Appendix D - Hull VolCanoe

Thickness/Reinforcement & POA

Percent Open Area Calculations:

t1= 5.6mm

t2= 5.6mm
𝟓.𝟔
d1= 24.9+ 2 ∗ = 24.9+ 𝟐 ∗ = 30.1mm
𝟐

𝟑.𝟗
d2 = 26.7 + 2 ∗ = 26.7 + 𝟐 ∗ = 30.6mm
𝟐

n1 = 6

n2 = 6

Areaopen1= 25mm^2

𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 = 𝑛 ∗ 𝑛 ∗ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 6*6*25mm^2 = 22500mm^2

𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ∗ 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 180.6mm*183.6mm = 33158.16mm^2

𝑷𝑶𝑨 = *100% = *100% = 67.9%

.

Thickness Calculations:

The wall thickness is 0.75”. Each layer of reinforcement is 0.04” thick. There are two layers of reinforcement in
the canoe. So, 𝟎. 𝟎𝟖" 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎% = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟔𝟕% of the hull thickness is reinforcement.

D-1
Northern Arizona University