You are on page 1of 24

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ii
Project Management 1
Organization Chart 2
Hull Design and Structural Analysis 3
Development and Testing 5
Construction8
Project Schedule 10
Design Drawing 11

List of Tables
Table 1: BEAREA 51 Specifications ii
Table 2: Material Properties ii
Table 3: Selected Milestone Activities 1
Table 4: Comparative Hull Performance 3
Table 5: Benchmark Material Properties 5
Table 6: Baseline vs. Final Material Properties 7

List of Figures
Fig 1: BEAREA 51 on Display ii
Fig 2: Person-hour Distribution 1
Fig 3: Financial Allocation 1
Fig 4: 3-D Printed Canoe Models 3
Fig 5: ITTC Equation 3
Fig 6: Moment Envelope Diagram 4
Fig 7: Baseline vs. Final Mix Proportions 5
Fig 8: Structural Mix Gradation vs. Fuller Curve 6
Fig 9: Reinforcement Splice Detail 7
Fig 10: Wood Male Mold 8
Fig 11: Concrete Spacers 8
Fig 12: Laser Alignment System 9
Fig 13: Heat Curing Tent 9
Fig 14: Interior Graphics Stencils 9

List of Appendices
Appendix A: References A-1
Appendix B: Mixture Proportions B-1
Appendix C: Bill of Materials C-1
Appendix D: Sample Structural Calculations D-1
Appendix E: Reconstruction Request E-1

i
i
Executive Summary Name
Table 1: BEAREA 51’s Specifications
BEAREA 51
As engineers, we have an obligation to Length 247 in.
confront challenges head-on by innovating and Maximum Width 29.5 in.
implementing creative solutions to current issues. The Maximum Depth 15 in.
2015 UC Berkeley Concrete Canoe team identified the Hull Thickness 1/2 in.
environmental impact of concrete construction as a Weight 215 lb.
major contemporary concern, and therefore set out to Colors Black with red & white accents
develop the most sustainable concrete canoe possible. To Main Reinforcement C-Grid Carbon Fiber Mesh
meet this challenging goal, the team utilized incredibly
innovative materials and techniques. Where better to Table 2: Material Properties
look for inspiration for such revolutionary technology Structural Mix Patch Mix
than Area 51? 28-Day Compressive 1190 790
Although the current use of this United States Air Strength (psi)
Force testing and development center is unknown, Area 28-Day Tensile Strength 120 110
51 has long captured the imagination of the nation with (psi)
its mystery and classified status. Conspiracy theorists Composite Flexural 610 550
Strength (psi)
have pointed to this secretive military base as a storage
Plastic Unit Weight (pcf) 58 68
site for crashed alien spaceships, and others suggest that
it is the location of a top-secret government program set Oven Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 51 60
up to reverse-engineer extraterrestrial technology. With Air Content 2.1% 12.1%
BEAREA 51, the UC Berkeley Concrete Canoe team C-Grid Reinforcement 100
hopes to harness the promise of advanced technology Tensile Strength (ksi)
to produce a canoe of unprecedented innovation and to replace the standard foam formwork with a custom-
quality. built wood male mold helped significantly reduce project
Located in Berkeley, California - part of the waste and established a construction technique that can
eclectic San Francisco Bay Area - The University easily be repurposed for use in future years.
of California, Berkeley was founded in 1868 as the The team revised its hull design methodology
flagship campus of the University of California system. by developing a scaled-model flume test to optimize
Consistently ranked as one of the top undergraduate BEAREA 51’s hull. Rigorous analysis provided the
civil engineering programs in the world, Berkeley prides basis for a structurally efficient and cost-effective
itself on its novel research, leadership, and impact on the reinforcement system - avoiding any costly over-design
worldwide engineering community. In the 28 years of the that would further complicate the construction process
Concrete Canoe competition, UC Berkeley has qualified and put a strain on team finances. In conjunction with a
for Nationals 20 times, with 14 Top-5 finishes and 5 precise project management scheme, these advancements
championships. Over the past 3 Mid-Pacific Conference have resulted in a unique and inventive final product. UC
competitions, UC Berkeley has finished in 2nd place with Berkeley Concrete Canoe is proud to present BEAREA
Graffical 2.0 in 2012 (10th at Nationals), 3rd place with 51, an out-of-this-world canoe that will surely silence the
Zombear in 2013, and 4th place with Calamari in 2014. skeptics.
By building upon a history of excellence,
the 2015 UC Berkeley Concrete Canoe team hopes
to push the boundaries of concrete technology and
construction. Throughout the project, the team prioritized
environmental sustainability by emphasizing the use
of recycled materials and sustainable construction MIDPAC team picture
techniques. The implementation of a fly-ash based
geopolymer concrete - completely devoid of portland
cement - reduced the canoe’s global warming potential
by 35% compared to the portland cement based product Figure 1: BEAREA 51 on display at 2015 Mid-Pacific Competition
used in previous years. Additionally, the team’s decision
ii
ii
Project Management
Due to the complex and innovative nature of
BEAREA 51’s design and construction, team leaders had
to develop and execute a precise project management
scheme to meet the team’s quality, safety, financial, and
sustainability objectives.
Throughout the project, the officer team Figure 2: Person Hour Distribution (2800 Total)
implemented lean construction techniques to ensure accuracy and depth control by designating members to
efficient use of time and continual improvement assist the quality control officer during form construction
in communication. After evaluation of previous years’ and casting. Although the team was ultimately successful
schedules, several key milestones were adjusted to in utilizing the geopolymer mix, officers managed risk
provide more time for critical tasks that had previously by developing a backup portland cement-based mix in
been rushed. The decision to cast the canoe prior to UC case a feasible geopolymer mix could not be developed
Berkeley’s winter break, a major deviation from previous in time.
schedules, allowed for increased focus on critical post- BEAREA 51 team members were split into five
casting tasks such as sanding and graphics application. divisions, each led by a dedicated officer as detailed in the
The team also relied on commitment based organizational chart on Page 2. Although specific tasks
planning to secure reliable assurances that short-term and responsibilities were assigned within each individual
tasks would be completed as scheduled. Each officer division, members were encouraged to participate in
was assigned weekly action items for which they were multiple disciplines to gain experience and facilitate
responsible for completing with the support of the rest improved team communication. The decision to build
of the team. Weekly officer meetings concluded with a custom wood formwork instead of using a commercially
“Plus/Delta” session to highlight successes and identify milled foam mold necessitated increased allocation of
areas for improvement from the previous week. In the labor resources to the construction division compared
event that action items were not completed as scheduled, to previous years. As such, available personnel were
the officer team identified the “reasons for variance” and carefully distributed and members occasionally shifted
the project managers worked to remove any logistical between divisions to assist in meeting certain critical
constraints that impeded progress. This implementation deadlines. Roughly 2800 person-hours were dedicated to
of a “plan-do-check-adjust” cycle helped ensure that the completion of the project (Figure 2).
critical path activities – primarily related to the hull After evaluating funding sources and detailing
design and construction of the mold – were not delayed project costs, BEAREA 51’s project managers drafted
(Salem et al., 2006). an annual operational budget of $5230, with $1684.21
The creation of a dedicated safety and quality dedicated to the final canoe’s production costs as
control officer position ensured that all team members shown in Appendix C. As in previous years, the team
were properly trained and strict safety protocols were collaborated with other UC Berkeley civil engineering
developed and followed closely. The use of a geopolymer competition teams to leverage resources and effectively
binder with sodium hydroxide constituents required extra fundraise in order to supplement material donations.
care in handling and storing mix materials. MSDS sheets Specific financial allocations are shown in Figure 3.
were collected for all materials used and members were Construction
trained and provided with the necessary safety equipment $2,525
48%
required for proper material handling. Likewise, the
team made significant efforts to maintain dimensional Structural Analysis Graphics
$300 $350
6% 7%
Table 3: Selected Milestone Activities
Milestone Variance Reason Hull Design
Other
$100
$770
Hull Design Completion +7 days Difficulties acquiring software 2%
15% Materials
Completion of Mold +5 days Late start due to delay in $1185
predecessor 22%
Casting Day None Accelerated construction
Figure 3: Financial Allocation ($5230 Total)
1
1
Organization Chart

Brooke Gemmell SO 2 [1]*

2
2
Hull Design and Structural Analysis
BEAREA 51’s hull design team focused on of 0.57 for a speed-to-length ratio of 1.2 (Kinney, 1973).
developing a streamlined profile that minimized drag The team also designed a flat bottom wetted
forces while improving maneuverability and stability. surface to decrease tipping motion and enhance stability.
The drag exerted on a canoe as it moves through the To improve tracking, the team designed a hard chine and
water is caused by two primary components: friction and a keel that emerges from the midsection onwards to the
pressure. Frictional drag is produced by viscous shearing stern. Finally, in order to prevent water from entering the
stresses that develop along the wetted surface area of the canoe, the final 3 ft. of the gunwales were gently sloped
hull, and pressure-induced drag is caused by both the up 3 in. to form a peaked stern. BEAREA 51’s final design
shape of the hull and wave action (Munson et al., 2013). has a length of 20 ft. 7 in. and a maximum beam of 29.5
A comprehensive testing protocol was developed to in. located 1 ft. astern of the midsection.
analyze the specific drag force contributions and create Once the design was complete, a scale model
an optimized hull design. of BEAREA 51 was 3-D printed and tested in the flume
The hull design division conducted a flume using the same procedures discussed above. As shown in
test to experimentally measure the total drag force on Table 4, BEAREA 51’s updated design resulted in lower
scale models using a force transducer and multimeter. wave drag and total drag forces. Additionally, the hull
To establish baseline results for the free surface flows design team developed a simple relative maneuverability
related to various hull configurations, a 1:20 scale test by measuring the time needed for the canoe to turn
model of Calamari (2014) was 3-D printed and loaded 90° when a constant jet of water was applied normal to
to accurately represent typical race conditions. Using the stern. This test modeled the pivot turns used during
Froude number similitude, the design team calculated both sprint and endurance races. BEAREA 51’s design
an appropriate scale model velocity of 1.9 ft/s to exhibited a lower turning time, indicating improved
correspond with a maximum canoe speed of 8.5 ft/s maneuverability. With the use of these qualitative
(Munson et al., 2013). Taking into account the required experiments along with conventional design principles,
Reynolds number correction, the ITTC correlation line BEAREA 51’s hull design was completed and handed off
was utilized as shown in Figure 5 to calculate friction to the structural analysis and construction divisions.
drag coefficients for both the model and full-scale canoe
(Trupper, 2013). From these results, the wave drag
Loading Area
coefficient was calculated by relating the friction drag to
the total measured drag force. Finally, the drag equation Waterline
was applied to compute the frictional, wave, and total
drag values for the full-scale canoe. As shown in Table Calamari
4, wave-making resistance dominates at typical concrete
canoe race speeds, contributing to about 70% of the total
drag force. Accordingly, BEAREA 51’s hull was designed BEAREA 51
to decrease the wave drag while improving upon the
stability and maneuverability achieved in previous years. Figure 4: 3-D Printed Canoe Models
In order to create a more streamlined hull that
would generate lower wave drag, the team increased the
length-to-beam ratio by 6.5% over Calamari (Trupper,
2013). Additionally, an iterative process was developed in
Prolines® to determine the optimal prismatic coefficient Figure 5: ITTC Equation

Table 4: Comparative Hull Performance


Canoe (year) Length-To-Beam-Ratio 90o Turn Time Total Drag Scaled Drag Force @ 8.5 Ft/s
(Wave Drag/Friction Drag)
Calamari (2014) 8.151 5.5 seconds .0052 lb 31.0 lbs (22.8 lbs / 8.16 lbs)
BEAREA 51 (2015) 8.671 4.5 seconds .0048 lb 27.6 lbs (19.3 lbs / 8.33 lbs)

3
3
The primary objective of the structural analysis only a single layer of carbon fiber reinforcement. The
division was to ensure BEAREA 51 would withstand all concrete strain at the extreme compression fiber was
reasonable loading scenarios. RISA 2-D®, a structural taken as 0.3% (ACI 318-11), and the carbon fiber strain at
analysis software, was utilized in conjunction with the extreme tension fiber was taken as 0.2% (Chomarat,
Microsoft Excel® to perform the analysis. Six loading 2010). From these values, a strain profile was created
cases were considered: transportation in the trailer, where the reinforcement reached its yield strength. From
transportation by team members, stand-supported, the this profile, the strain of each longitudinal reinforcement
coed race, and the men’s and women’s races. fiber was determined and consequently, peak stresses
The canoe was modeled as a simply supported, were calculated using the material’s modulus of elasticity.
two-dimensional beam. The material team’s initial The compressive force of the concrete was then obtained
estimate of 60 pcf concrete applied uniformly throughout by summing the tensile and compressive forces of the
the hull at a thickness of ½ in. yielded an estimated longitudinal reinforcement fibers. This analysis was
weight of 220 lbs. This self-weight was modeled as a repeated several times, using concrete compressive
non-uniform distributed load estimated from the cross strengths ranging from 1000 - 1500 psi. The negative
sectional areas of the canoe. Using the weights of the moment capacity for the 1000 psi concrete was 425 lb-
paddlers expected to compete in this year’s competition, ft, more than adequate for the critical negative bending
male and female paddler weights were modeled as 200 moment of 250 lb-ft, by a factor of safety of 1.7, while
lb and 135 lb point loads, respectively. The hydrostatic the positive moment capacity of 570 lb-ft exceeded the
force was modeled as a non-uniform distributed load, critical positive bending moment by a factor of safety of
with peak values at the location of the paddlers. The 2.4. Thus, a composite material consisting of 1000 psi
trailer transportation system was modeled as a constant concrete and 100 ksi reinforcement was found to satisfy
distributed load along the length of the canoe. In the case the ultimate demand.
of transportation by team members, each pair of members
(five pairs total) was modeled as upward point forces of
equal magnitude. Lastly, for the stand-supported case,
the simple supports were placed 6 ft. inwards from the
bow and stern of the canoe.
To determine the required material properties of
the composite material used in the canoe, the structural
analysis team utilized Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD), a limit state design methodology. Due to the
variable nature of the canoe loading, various LRFD load
combinations were analyzed in order to determine the
critical material stresses. Ultimately, all forces except
those generated by the stand-supported loading case Figure 6: Moment Envelope Diagram
were considered live loads. Analysis of all loading cases Analysis determined that a composite material
yielded a peak negative bending moment of 250 lb-ft, consisting of a single, nearly continuous layer of
located 11.2 ft. from the bow of the canoe in the men’s carbon fiber mesh provided more than adequate flexural
sprint loading case and peak positive moment of 239 lb- capacity to meet the critical bending moment demand.
ft at 16.1 ft from the bow also in the men’s sprint. This reinforcement layout featured a transverse splice
To perform the limit-state design analysis, the length of approximately 6 in. to effectively transfer
compressive strength of concrete was initially assumed loads between each sheet of reinforcement. The factor
to be 1000 psi. The canoe was analyzed as nineteen ½ of safety provided with this reinforcement scheme was
in. thick channel-shaped cross sections at 1 ft. intervals such that additional structural elements would have been
along the canoe. The choice of the channel shape was superfluous, and only served to create additional work
made to ensure a conservative analysis, taking into for the construction division. However, due to the new,
account the limits of the LRFD design methodology and more rigorous flotation test, cast-in EPS foam inserts at
modeling of the forces on the canoe. Despite the presence the ends of the canoe were deemed necessary, but were
of alkali-resistant glass scrim in limited quantities, the not designed to be structural elements.
reinforcement scheme was conservatively modeled with
4
4
Development and Testing Due to a lack of working knowledge about
the geopolymer material, intensive research and
The primary objective of BEAREA 51’s materials collaboration with campus researchers allowed the
division was to create a lightweight and highly sustainable team to make preliminary design decisions and develop
concrete mixture that would meet both constructability a baseline mix. A 3:1 solids-to-liquids ratio originally
and structural performance requirements. Minimum proposed by researchers was adapted to create BEAREA
benchmark specifications for workability, density, and 51’s lightweight baseline mix design (Kong et al., 2007).
strength were established through collaboration with This mix, which relied upon Class F fly ash (ASTM
the construction and structural analysis divisions (Table C618) and a sodium hydroxide/sodium silicate solution
5). The team’s focus on sustainability necessitated a described below, exhibited an excessively granular
comprehensive review of contemporary green-concrete texture. This characteristic indicated an insufficient
technology, and led to the selection and implementation matrix of cementitious materials and alkaline solution
of geopolymer concrete in the production of BEAREA 51. surrounding the aggregate. Therefore, the team increased
The geopolymer concrete (GPC) used for BEAREA 51 is the cementitious content from the baseline value,
a fly ash-based binding material that contains no portland increasing fly ash proportions in the greatest increment
cement. The GPC exploits a polymerization reaction that (Figure 7). Note that while Class F fly ash, silica fume,
occurs between various aluminosilicates (found in both and blast furnace slag possess pozzolanic as opposed
cementitious and pozzolanic materials) and an alkaline to cementitious properties, they will be referred to as
solution. In contrast, ordinary portland cement (OPC) cementitious materials throughout this paper in order to
concrete relies on hydration reactions between calcium match the mandated mixture proportion table convention.
based compounds and water to form the binding product.
This change in chemistry significantly reduces the global
warming potential of GPC production compared to OPC
concrete production, a key consideration in the ultimate
decision to use GPC.
Table 5: Benchmark Material Properties
Property Benchmark Value
Slump (in) 3.0 +/- 1.0
Density (Plastic, pcf) 60.0 Figure 7: Baseline vs. Final Mix Proportions
Compressive Strength (psi) 1000 Research has demonstrated that the use of blast
furnace slag (ASTM 989) as an “active filler” for GPC
Throughout the iterative mix design process, a yields high strength products, displaying compressive
variety of test methods were employed to measure the strengths on the order of 9 ksi (Provis & Van Deventer
desired properties of each mix. Fresh batches were tested 2009). Thus, to achieve the required compressive
for workability and cohesion using a standard slump test strength, blast furnace slag was selected as a partial
(ASTM C143). To gain initial insights on the feasibility fly ash replacement. To determine the optimal slag
of each mix, compression tests were performed on proportion, multiple mixes were prepared with slag
standard cylinders (ASTM C192) at 28 days from casting contents ranging from 0-8%. Compression testing of
throughout the design process (ASTM C39). When mixes these samples indicated that a 6% slag content produced
met workability and compressive strength benchmark optimal compressive strength gains. As the densest
specifications defined by our construction and structural material component used in BEAREA 51, the proportion
analysis divisions, further tests were conducted to observe of blast furnace slag (S.G. = 2.9) was limited to 13%
the material’s flexural and tensile behavior. To determine of the cementitious mass to address concerns about
the tensile strength of each specimen, splitting tension overall density of the mix. Additionally, silica fume
tests were performed (ASTM C496). Finally, 4-point (ASTM C1240) was utilized in small proportions (6%
plate bending tests were performed on the composite by cementitious mass) as a pozzolanic partial fly ash
sections, consisting of both the concrete and carbon fiber replacement to further increase compressive strength as
reinforcement, to determine flexural strength. well as decrease the porosity of the GPC (Dutta et al.,
2010).
5 5
After evaluating several alternatives, the materials to initially select a sodium hydroxide/sodium silicate
team selected Poraver® expanded glass aggregate due to its solution as the alkaline solution for the baseline mix
lightweight structure, varying particle sizes, and recycled (Wallah & Rangan, 2006). Although research suggested
content. To quantify the effectiveness of the gradation of this alkaline solution would be a viable option, early mixes
the recycled aggregate, the materials division utilized a exhibited excessive flash setting incompatible with the
Fuller curve, an idealized model for maximum aggregate casting scheme. Setting occurred as early as five minutes
density proportioning in concrete, in conjunction with after the addition of the alkaline solution to the dry
observations of workability (Shakhmenko & Birsh, cementitious materials, causing rapid losses of cohesion
1998). The gradation was initially developed to follow the and workability of the fresh product. Through iterative
Fuller curve as closely as possible, with slight variations experimentation, the materials team systematically
introduced to improve the workability of the fresh mixture. removed individual components of the baseline mix and
The final aggregate proportions for the structural mix are determined that the sodium silicate was the likely source
compared to a Fuller curve in Figure 8 below. Analysis of the flash setting. Removing this silicate component
indicated an R2 value of 0.96 between the final gradation increased setting time to approximately 45 minutes, thus
and the corresponding Fuller curve. allowing for proper consolidation of samples (ASTM
C192), and therefore increased compressive strength.
The final structural mix utilized a 10 M NaOH solution
to provide the binding mechanism in combination with
the cementitious materials. This solution was produced
in a campus laboratory using solid NaOH pellets and
water. Although research indicates that NaOH is most
often used at concentrations between 8 and 16 M, and
is most effective at the higher end of this range, the
molarity of the solution used was restricted to 10 M
due to financial and safety concerns (Provis & Van
Deventer, 2009). Due to the relatively high cost of NaOH
Figure 8: Structural Mix Gradation vs. Fuller Curve pellets, the 10 M solution was selected to ensure that the
materials division’s costs fell within the allocated budget.
In addition to the structural mix, the materials
Additionally, the production of higher molarity solutions
division developed a patch mix for the finishing process.
of NaOH prompted concerns regarding the safe handling
This finishing material was largely adapted from the
and storage of the material.
structural mix, but varied primarily in aggregate gradation.
A significant complication in implementing GPC
The patch mix eliminated the two largest aggregate sizes
was the lack of compatible chemical admixtures. In OPC
that were used in the structural design, thus restricting
concrete, the wide variety of proprietary admixtures
the largest aggregate size to 1 mm. This ensured that the
allows for manipulation of specific properties such as
material could be worked into small irregularities on the
workability, entrained air content, and setting time.
surface of the canoe. Additionally, a liquid latex polymer
Due to the vast differences in the reaction chemistry
admixture (ASTM C1438) was utilized at a dosage of 30
of GPC, these admixtures could not be consistently
fl oz/cwt in the patch mixture to enhance adhesion of the
relied upon to perform the same functions in the mixes.
finishing material to the existing concrete surface.
Workability and setting time were identified as the most
At the request of the graphics division, a black
important properties to be addressed with chemical
synthetic iron oxide pigment (ASTM C979) was
admixtures. After conducting experiments with various
incorporated into both concrete mixtures to provide a
super plasticizers, the materials division determined
darker substrate on which graphics would be applied.
that ADVA Cast 555® high range water reducer (ASTM
Testing demonstrated the pigment had a negligible effect
C494) effectively enhanced workability of the fresh
on the fresh and hardened properties of the concrete due
concrete at a dosage of 15 fl oz/cwt; this dosage falls
to the small proportion of pigment necessary to achieve
within the manufacturer’s recommended dosage range of
the desired color (<1% by mass).
8-20 fl oz/cwt. In an attempt to further improve the setting
Research on the long-term properties of low
time and facilitate casting, two set retarders were tested:
calcium fly ash-based GPCs guided the materials division
6 6
Grace Chemical Recover® hydration stabilizer (ASTM structural mix. Cylinders were cast and cured in three
C494) and a simple sucrose solution. Recover® proved different environments: ambient conditions, a 122°F
to have negligible effects on the flash setting of mixes. chamber with controlled humidity (relative humidity
Thus, the team experimented to determine the feasibility 50%), and a 176°F chamber without humidity control.
of using a glucose solution as a rudimentary set retarder Heat curing at 122°F yielded an average 28-day
for GPC (Nuruddin et al., 2010). While the sucrose compressive strength of 1190 psi, demonstrating strength
solution delayed the setting time of the concrete by up gains on the order of 30% compared to samples cured in
to 30 minutes, its detrimental effects on the compressive ambient conditions. Samples cured in the 176°F chamber
strength and workability of the concrete were deemed experienced significant drying shrinkage, but these
too extreme for further usage. Once the sodium silicate results were discarded from the experiment due to the
component was removed from the alkaline solution, as lack of humidity control available in the chamber. These
discussed above, the need for a dedicated set retarder test results led the team to cure the canoe in a 122°F
became less pressing. heat chamber. Final results from tests on compressive,
tensile, and flexural specimens cured in these conditions
6” Overlap
are summarized in Table 6 below.
As discussed above, the potential environmental
benefits associated with geopolymer concrete contributed
to the decision to pursue this innovative material. GPC
research has demonstrated global warming potential
reductions up to 80%, depending on the specific
components and curing techniques (Davidovits, 1994;
Figure 9: Reinforcement Splice Detail Habert et al., 2011). The team conducted a detailed
In order to ensure a continuous transfer of tensile life-cycle analysis of the production of BEAREA 51 to
forces, the team focused on providing uninterrupted evaluate the actual reductions achieved. Although some
reinforcement along the length of the hull in the form environmental benefits are offset by the increased CO2
of three carbon fiber sheets as shown in Figure 9. The emissions associated with sodium hydroxide production
materials team selected carbon fiber in lieu of fiberglass and heat curing, the decision to use GPC instead of OPC
or steel meshes for its its lightweight properties and concrete still resulted in approximately a 35% reduction in
high tensile strength. C-Grid CT275® was selected from total global warming potential. In particular, eliminating
a number of carbon fiber mesh options due to its ease the sodium silicate solution often included in GPC helped
of placement and high percent open area. An additional the team maximize its environmental benefits (Habert et
layer of Alkali-Resistant Glass scrim was placed in areas al., 2011). With the exception of the sodium hydroxide
where the carbon fiber sheets were unable to conform to solution and several admixtures, all of BEAREA 51’s
the sharp contours of the canoe (e.g. at the tips of the canoe mineral and aggregate components are recycled.
and along the sloped gunwales at the bow). To reduce the Overall, the team’s material choices and manipulation
risks of microcracking due to plastic shrinkage, 12mm of the geopolymer concrete chemistry contributed to an
polyvinyl alcohol fibers (ASTM C1116) were used at a incredibly innovative and environmentally friendly final
proportion of 0.1% by volume. product.
The materials team employed new curing
methods to optimize compressive and flexural strength Table 6: Baseline vs. Final Material Properties
gains. While moist curing and conventional OPC Property Benchmark Baseline Structural
concrete curing compounds are ineffective for the GPC Specs Mix Mix
polymerization reaction, heat curing the final product Slump1 (in.) 3.0 +/- 1.0 1.0 3.0
was deemed advantageous due to the potential gains in
Density (Plastic, pcf)
2
60.0 55.3 57.5
overall strength relative to ambient curing. These gains
Compressive Strength 3
1000 315 1190
were assessed to be on the order of 15-30%, depending (psi)
on the curing temperature (Provis & Van Deventer, Composite Flexural Strength (psi) 610
2009). The materials division conducted experimentation
1) ASTM C143
to determine the potential strength increases for the 2) ASTM C138
3) ASTM C39
7 7
Plastering over the wood strips, sanding the plaster, and
Construction applying two coats of form release created a smooth
casting surface. Although this formwork construction
This year’s construction division revolutionized
scheme was more labor intensive than milling an EPS
its methodology by incorporating more sustainable
foam form, it enabled an accelerated construction
practices and materials while maintaining a high level of
schedule as well as major cost savings. BEAREA 51’s
quality. The material selection for the form was critical
wood male mold cost $767.05 in total, 61% less than the
in achieving sustainability goals. In previous years, the
$2000 spent on Calamari’s (2014) formwork.
team utilized professionally milled expanded polystyrene
foam (EPS) forms. This form choice imposed constraints
on the project schedule and resulted in harmful
environmental impacts, notably significant water and air
pollution. Additionally, EPS foam is difficult to recycle
and its disposal releases known carcinogens including
benzene and styrene (USEPA, 1994; USEPA, n.d.). After
analyzing the environmental impacts and constructibility
of several materials, the team developed an innovative
wood male mold to maximize sustainability while
maintaining required rigidity and dimensional precision.
Figure 10: Wood male mold under construction
Using coordinates provided by the hull design
team, cross-sections were cut out of oriented strand board As determined by the structural analysis division,
(OSB) using an on-campus computer numerical control BEAREA 51’s single layer of carbon fiber reinforcement
(CNC) router. Using the CNC router instead of sawing mesh was suspended at a depth of 7/32 in. from the
the sections by hand ensured design precision in the inner surface of the hull by precast concrete spacers.
fabrication of the hull and saved over 40 person-hours. These spacers were securely tied to the reinforcement
Leveraging existing relationships with campus resources and then attached to the form with a weak adhesive as
reduced fabrication costs and prevented potential delays shown in Figure 11. The spacers prevented inconsistent
caused by reliance on third party services. reinforcement depth as encountered in previous years.
The construction process began by building The officer team again applied lean construction
a reusable plywood casting table with a longitudinal methodology by pull planning the entire casting sequence
groove. A rigid wood beam was fixed into the groove to ensure an efficient casting process. Knowing that the
to act as a strongback to support the cross-sections. To updated geopolymer mix design resulted in setting times
properly shape the tips, wood sections were installed on shorter than ordinary portland cement concrete mixes,
both ends along the axis of the spine, and hollowed out officers optimized the batching sequence and carefully
to ease the demolding process (Figure 10). Construction choreographed concrete placement. Specific batches
members cut 7/32 in. thick plywood sheets into long, thin corresponded with predetermined cast zones on the hull,
strips and brad nailed and glued these strips longitudinally the order of which was designed to minimize any delays
onto the cross sections to form the shape of the male between casting adjacent layers or sections. To manage
form. Gunwale caps created from thin plywood strips
assured precision in the gunwale casting and saved time
during sanding. To prevent formwork deformation during
casting, the construction team applied reinforcing wood
strips on the inside of the form, perpendicular to the
longitudinal strips. The application of small amounts of
fiberglass and epoxy to the interior of the chine provided
additional support. Officers paid careful attention to
establish an appropriate ventilation system to prevent
dangerous exposure to epoxy fumes. Additionally,
limiting the sections that required fiberglass application
enabled the majority of the wood strips to be composted. Figure 11: Concrete spacers used to suspend carbon fiber
reinforcement
8
8
depth precision, screws were inserted into the mold at the using the halogen lamps. A heat curing duration of 72
desired ½ in. thickness of the canoe. Designated members hours optimized strength gain while minimizing energy
hand-placed the concrete, using a circular kneading consumption. Special care was taken while demolding
motion to ensure concrete was placed consistently under BEAREA 51 to preserve the tips of the canoe and prevent
the reinforcement. When the desired thickness was damage. Two feet of the formwork on both sides of the
achieved, the screws were removed, and the resulting canoe were removed before demolding the midsection to
voids were filled with concrete. Keel construction also prevent excessive stresses that can lead to cracking and
demanded special quality control attention due to the structural deficiencies.
male form. Members utilized a laser alignment system to Following demolding, a sanding tent was erected
ensure the straight casting of the keel along the midline around the canoe to prevent any hazardous particulate
of the canoe (Figure 12). matter from spreading throughout our shared lab space.
Members followed strict safety protocol by wearing
respiratory masks, gloves, and goggles during sanding.
Patch mix was used to fix imperfections on the inside of
the canoe and was sanded before the canoe was flipped
and the process repeated on the exterior.
Upon achieving a 2000 grit finish, BEAREA
51’s graphics division applied a series of vinyl stencils
to create a mask for stains (Figure 14). Testing revealed
that the desired acrylic stain adhered effectively to acid-
stained geopolymer, so the graphics division applied
a single layer of acid-based stain followed by a layer
Figure 12: Laser alignment system for precise keel placement
of black acrylic stain. After applying a set of negative
Remaining members were separated into teams stencils, single layers of both acid and acrylic stains were
dedicated to batching, mixing, transporting, and placing used to create the vibrant white tractor beam and red
concrete. Officers determined exactly when each batch conduit graphics. On the exterior of the canoe, the school
of concrete would be required and defined specific lettering and canoe name were deliberately left exposed
conditions of satisfaction to guarantee efficient material to feature the qualities of the bare geopolymer concrete.
handoff and quality control. This “just-in-time” material Finally, two layers of sealer were applied and the canoe
delivery prevented the formation of cold joints and was finished.
allowed the team to monolithically cast the entire canoe This revolutionary canoe marks a new era of
in less than 90 minutes. sustainable design and construction for UC Berkeley’s
Construction of a large-scale heat chamber using team. The team’s innovative techniques will set new
PVC pipes, reflective mylar blankets, and halogen lamps standards for success and have the concrete canoe
(Figure 13) facilitated the heat curing needed to develop community asking: “What exactly is going on with UC
the required material strength. The curing system was Berkeley’s BEAREA 51?”
set up immediately after casting and heated to 122ºF

Figure 13: Heat Curing Tent Figure 14: Vinyl stencil mask for interior graphics
9 9
10

10
11

11
11
Appendix A: References
ACI (2011). “Flexural and Axial Loads: Design Assumptions,” Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-11). American Concrete Institute Committee 318. Farmington Hills,
Michigan

ASTM (2004). “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens” C496/
C496M-11, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2010). “Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete” C1116/C1116M-10a, West Conshohocken,
PA.

ASTM (2010). “Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete” C979/C979M-10, West
Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2011). “Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for
Curing and Sealing Concrete” C1315-11, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2012). “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in
Concrete” C618-12a, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2012). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,” C143/C143M-12, West
Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2013). “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete” C494/C494M-13, West
Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2013). “Standard Specification for Latex and Powder Polymer Modifiers for use in Hydraulic Cement
Concrete and Mortar” C1438-13, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2014). “Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory” C192/
C192M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2014). “Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures” C1240-14, West
Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2014). “Standard Specification for Slag Cement for Use in Concrete and Mortars” C989/C989M-14, West
Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2014). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” C39/ C39M-
14a, West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM (2014). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete”
C138/C138M-14, West Conshohocken, PA.

California Concrete Canoe. (2014). “Calamari.” Midpac Concrete Design Paper, University of California, Berkeley,
CA.

Chomarat North America (2010). “Chromarat C-Grid CT275 & CT550 Technical Data Sheet.” <http://www.
chomarat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CT275-CT550.pdf> (10 Oct. 2014).
12
A-1
Appendix A: References (Cont.)

Davidovits, J., (1994). “Global Warming Impact on the Cement and Aggregate Industries.” World Resource Review,
6 (2), 263-278.

Dutta D., Thokchom, S., Ghosh, S., Ghosh, P. (2010). “Effect of Silica Fume Additions on Porosity of Fly Ash
Geopolymers.”J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 5(10), 74-79.

Habert, G., De Lacaillerie, J. D. E., & Roussel, N. (2011). An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete
production: reviewing current research trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1229-1238.

Kinney, Francis. S. (1973). Skene’s Elements of Yacht Design, 8th ed. Dodd, Mead & Company, NY.

Kong, D., Sanjayan, .J, Sagoe-Crentsil, K. (2007). “Comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin
and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures”. Cem. Concr. Res., 1583-1584.

Munson, B.R., Huebsch, W.W., and Rothmayer, A.P. (2013). "Dimensional Analysis, Similitude, and Modeling."
Chapter 7 in Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 346-388.

Nuruddin, M.F., Kusbiantoro, A., Qazi, S., Shafiq, N. (2010). The Effect of Natural Retarder On Fly Ash Based
Geopolymer Concrete, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Perak, Malaysia

Provis, J., van Deventer, J. (2009). Geopolymers: structure, processing, properties and industrial applications,
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Boca Raton, FL.

Reed, M., Lokuge, W., Karunasena, W. (2014). “Fibre-reinforced geopolymer concrete with ambient curing for in
situ applications.” J. Mater. Sci., 49 (12), 1.

Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A., and Minkarah, I. (2006). ”Lean Construction: From Theory to Implementation.”
J. Manage. Eng., 22(4), 168–175.

Shakhmenko, G., Birsh, J. (1998). Concrete Mix Design and Optimization, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia.

Sponberg, E. W. (2011). The Design Ratios. Sponberg Yacht Design Inc, BoatDesign.net, St. Augustine, FL.

Trupper, E.C. (2013). "Resistance." Chapter 7 in Introduction to Naval Architecture. 5th ed. Elsevier, Oxford, UK,
131-160.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1994). “(Styrene) Fact Sheet: Support Document”.
OPPT Chemical Fact Sheets, <http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/styre-sd.pdf> (16 Feb. 2015).

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (n.d) “Technical Factsheet on Benzene”. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, <http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/voc/tech/benzene.pdf> (16 Feb.
2015).

Wallah, S. E., Rangan, B. V. (2006). Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete: Long Term Properties,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia

C-1
A-2
Appendix B: Mix Proportions

Bearea 51 Structural Mix Design Proportions (Non Actual Batched


Yielded Proportions
YD 0.50 SSD) Proportions
Design Batch Size (ft ):
3

Amount Volume Amount Volume Amount Volume


Cementitious Materials SG
(lb/yd3) (ft3) (lb) (ft3) (lb/yd3) (ft3)
CM1 Fly Ash (Class F) 2.2 516.00 3.76 9.56 0.0696 531.01 3.87
CM2 Blast Furnace Slag 2.9 80.00 0.44 1.48 0.0082 82.33 0.45
CM3 Silica Fume 2.2 39.80 0.29 0.74 0.0054 40.96 0.30
Total Cementitious Materials: 635.80 4.49 11.77 0.0832 654.29 4.62
Fibers
F1 12 mm PVA Fibers 1.30 2.00 0.025 0.04 0.00046 2.06 0.025
Total Fibers: 2.00 0.025 0.04 0.00046 2.06 0.025
Aggregates
A1 2-4 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 23% 0.30 32.00 1.71 0.59 0.032 32.93 1.76
A2 1-2 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 20% 0.41 189.00 7.39 3.50 0.137 194.50 7.60
A3 0.5-1 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 20% 0.47 113.85 3.88 2.11 0.072 117.16 3.99
A4 0.25-0.5 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 28% 0.57 132.40 3.72 2.45 0.069 136.25 3.83
A5 0.1-0.3 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 35% 0.90 42.40 0.75 0.79 0.014 43.63 0.78
Total Aggregates: 509.65 17.46 9.44 0.323 524.48 17.96
Water
W1 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b) 225.01 3.61 4.17 0.067 231.56 3.71
W1a. Water from Admixtures 1.0 181.21 3.36 186.48
W1b. Additional Water 43.80 0.811 45.07
W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.0 119.84 2.22 123.33
Total Water (W1 + W2): 344.85 3.61 6.39 0.067 354.89 3.71
Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form
S1 Black Pigment 2.5 15.00 0.10 0.28 0.0018 15.44 0.10
Total Solids of Admixtures: 15.00 0.10 0.28 0.0018 15.44 0.10

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form) Water in Water in Water in


Dosage Amount Dosage
% Solids Admixture Admixture Admixture
(fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt)
(lb/yd3) (lb) (lb/yd3)

Ad1 ADVA Cast 555 8.9 lb/gal 40.0 15.00 3.98 1.77 0.074 15.44 4.09
Ad2 10M NaOH Solution 11.1 lb/gal 30.15 460.20 177.23 54.18 3.28 473.59 182.39
Water from Admixtures (W1a): 181.21 3.36 186.48

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.0 0.0 0.0


Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35
Slump, Slump Flow, in. 3.0 +/- 1.0 3.0 3.0
M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1507.30 27.91 1551.15
V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft3 25.67 0.48 26.42
T Theorectical Density, lb/ft3 = (M / V) 58.71 58.71 58.71
D Design Density, lb/ft3 = (M / 27) 55.83
D Measured Density, lb/ft3 57.45 57.45
A Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 4.9% 2.1% 2.1%
Y Yield, ft
3
= (M / D) 27 0.49 27
Ry Relative Yield = (Y / YD) 0.97

C-2
B-1
Appendix B: Mix Proportions (Cont.)

Bearea 51 Patch Mix Design Proportions Actual Batched


Yielded Proportions
YD Design Batch Size (ft 3): 0.50 (Non SSD) Proportions

Amount Volume Amount Volume Amount Volume


Cementitious Materials SG
(lb/yd3) (ft3) (lb) (ft3) (lb/yd3) (ft3)
CM1 Fly Ash (Class F) 2.2 631.15 4.60 11.69 0.0851 761.32 5.55
CM2 Blast Furnace Slag 2.9 110.00 0.61 2.04 0.0113 132.69 0.73
CM3 Silica Fume 2.2 54.45 0.40 1.01 0.0073 65.68 0.48
Total Cementitious Materials: 795.60 5.60 14.73 0.1037 959.68 6.76
Aggregates
A1 0.5-1.0 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 20% 0.47 128.58 4.38 2.38 0.081 155.10 5.29
A2 0.25-0.5 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 28% 0.57 118.08 3.32 2.19 0.061 142.43 4.00
A3 0.1-0.3 mm Recycled Glass Beads Abs: 35% 0.90 90.35 1.61 1.67 0.030 108.98 1.94
Total Aggregates: 337.01 9.31 6.24 0.172 406.51 11.23
Water
W1 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b ) 283.11 4.54 5.24 0.084 341.50 5.47
W1a. Water from Admixtures 1.0 229.26 4.25 276.55
W1b. Additional Water 53.85 1.00 64.96
W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.0 90.40 1.67 109.04
Total Water (W1 + W2) : 373.52 4.54 6.92 0.084 450.55 5.47
Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form
S1 Black Pigment 2.5 17.40 0.11 0.32 0.002 20.99 0.135
S2 Latex Solids 1.07 7.52 0.11 0.14 0.002 9.07 0.136
Total Solids of Admixtures: 24.92 0.22 0.46 0.004 30.06 0.270

Water in Water in Water in


Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form) % Dosage Amount Dosage
Admixture Admixture Admixture
Solids (fl oz/cwt) (fl oz) (fl oz/cwt)
(lb/yd3) (lb) (lb/yd3)
Ad1 ADVA Cast 555 8.9 lb/gal 40.0 15.00 4.98 2.21 0.092 18.09 6.01
Ad2 10M NaOH Solution 11.1 lb/gal 30.15 448.50 216.14 66.08 4.003 541.00 260.72
Ad3 Liquid Latex 8.4 lb/gal 48.0 30.00 8.14 4.42 0.151 36.19 9.82
Water from Admixtures (W1a) : .. 229.26 4.246 276.55

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.0 0.0 0.0


Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36
Slump, Slump Flow, in . 4.5 +/- 1 4.0 4.0
M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1531.04 28.35 1846.80
V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft 3 19.68 0.36 23.73
3
T Theorectical Density, lb/ft = (M / V) 77.81 77.81 77.81
3
D Design Density, lb/ft = (M / 27) 56.71
D Measured Density, lb/ft 3 68.40 68.40
A Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 27.1% 12.1% 12.1%
Y Yield, ft 3 = (M / D) 27 0.41 27
Ry Relative Yield = (Y / Y D ) 0.83

C-3
B-2
Appendix C: Bill of Materials

C-4
C-1
Appendix D: Sample Structural Calculation
Men’s Sprint Loading Case
200 lb. 200 lb.

Paddler 1 Paddler 2
7’-0”
16’-0”

Factored combined free body diagram


20 lb/ft 20 lb/ft
200 lb. x 1.6 = 320 lb. 200 lb. x 1.6 = 320 lb.

Zone (1) Zone (2) Zone (3)

X 46 lb/ft
41.84 lb/ft

1 Shear and bending moment formulas


1.1 Zone (1): Bow to Paddler 1
1.1.1 Calculation of internal shear force

Fy = 0
x x
V1 (x) − 46( )( ) + 32 = 0
7 2 Figure 1: Internal shear
V1 (x) = 3.286x2 − 32 force and bending moment
1.1.2 Calculation of internal bending moment

Mx = 0 The internal shear force at
x x x some point X in the zone of
M1 (x) − 46( )( )( ) + 32x = 0 interest is found via ΣFy =
7 2 3
0. The internal bending
M1 (x) = 1.095x3 − 32x moment around X is
1.2 Zone (2): Paddler 1 to Paddler 2 determined via ΣM x = 0.

1.2.1 Calculation of internal shear force


x−7
7 46 + (46 − 41.84)(46 − 9
) Formulas for the internal
V2 (x) = 46( ) − 32 − 320 + (x − 7)
2 2 shear force and bending
V2 (x) = −0.2304x2 + 49.232x − 524.32 moment are determined for
each zone between applied
1.2.2 Calculation of internal bending moment point forces (three total).

M2 (x) = V2 (x)dx = −0.0768x3 + 24.616x2 − 524.32x + 2642.05
1.3 Zone (3): Paddler 2 to Stern Calculation of internal
1.3.1 Calculation of internal shear forces bending moment shown
explicitly for zone (1),
7 46 − 41.84 (41.84 + ( 41.84(32−x)
4
) remaining internal bending
V3 (x) = 46 × − 32 − 2(320) + 9( )+ (x − 16)
2 2 2 moments are found by
V3 (x) = −5.2304x2 + 209.28x − 2123.2 integrating the internal
shear force.
1.3.2 Calculation of internal bending moment

M3 (x) = V3 (x)dx = −1.743x3 + 104.64x2 − 2123.2x + 14588

C-5
D-1
Appendix D: Sample Structural Calculation (Cont.)
1 Determination of peak stresses
1.1 Assumptions
1. Canoe cross section simplified to 3 rectangular sections forming channel shape
2. Uniform thickness (1/2”) for entire cross section
3. Cross-section is non-transformed, i.e. no reinforcement included in calculations
4. The buoyancy force was derived under the assumption that the weight of each paddler is bal-
anced by a non-uniform, linear, distributed force peaking at the location of each paddler. The
superposition of the two paddler buoyancy forces gives the total buoyancy force
5. Paddler locations obtained from photographs of past years’ races

Figure 1: Cross section of Bearea 51 at 11.2’ from bow and channel-shaped model
used in analysis

1.2 Sample calculations for cross section of max M-


1.2.1 Determination of neutral axis
3 3
1 1 Ai = Area of rectangle i
AT otal = Ai = bi hi = 2 × 15 × + 24.6 × = 27.3in2
i=1 i=1
2 2
3

(Ay)T otal = Ai yi = 2 × 7.5 × 8 + 12.3 × 0.25 = 123.08in3 yi = Height of centroid of
i=1
area i
(Ay)T otal 123.08in3 c1 = Distance from base to
c1 = = = 4.51in
AT otal 27.3in2 neutral axis
c2 = H − c1 = 15.5in − 4.51in = 10.99in c2 = Distance from top to
di = |c1 − yi | the neutral axis
di = Distance from neutral
d1 = d3 = |4.51in − 8in| = 3.49in d2 = |4.51in − 0.25in| = 4.26in axis to centroid of area i
1.2.2 Determination of moment of inertia of area

bi h3i
Ii = Ii = Moment of inertia of
12 area i
0.5 × 153 24.6 × 0.53
I1 = I 3 = = 140.63in4 I2 = = 0.256in4
12 12

Izi = Ii + Ai d2i Izi = Second moment of


2 4 area for area i
Iz1 = Iz3 = 140.63 + 7.5 × 3.49 = 231.98in
Iz2 = 0.256 + 12.3 × 4.262 = 223.47in4
3

Iztotal = Izi = 2 × 291.94in4 + 283.80in4 = 687.43in4
i=1

1.2.3 Determination of peak stresses

12M − c1 12 × 250.6lb − f t × 4.51in σ- = Max compressive


σ− = = = 20psi bending stress
Iztotal 687.43in4

12M − c2 12 × 250.6lb − f t × 10.99in σ+ = Max tensile bending


σ+ = = = 48psi
Iztotal 687.43in4 stress

C-6
D-2
Appendix E: Reconstruction Request

C-7
E-1
Appendix E: Reconstruction Request (Cont.)

C-8
E-2
Appendix E: Reconstruction Request (Cont.)

C-9
E-3

You might also like