You are on page 1of 25


Executive Summary ii
Project Management 1
Quality Assurance/ Quality Control 2
Organization Chart 3
Hull Design and Structural Analysis 4
Development & Testing 6
Construction 9
Project Schedule 11
Construction Drawing 12

Table 1: W right W ay Specifications ii
Table 2: Concrete Mixture Properties ii
Table 3: Milestones 1
Table 4: Hull Design 4
Table 5: 7-Day Cylinder Results 7

Figure 1: Hour Allocation 1
Figure 2: Pour Day Quality Control Plan 2
Figure 3: Punching Shear 4
Figure 4: Loading Scenarios 5
Figure 5: Moment Comparison 5
Figure 6: TX Active® Photocatalytic Reaction 6
Figure 7: Split Tension Test 7
Figure 8: Slab Reinforcement Schemes 8
Figure 9: Third Point Bending with Steel Cable 8
Figure 10: Pre-measuring 8
Figure 11: Carbon-Fiber Practice Canoe 9
Figure 12: Mold Preparation 9
Figure 13: Placement of Inlay 10
Figure 14: Mold Disassembly 10

Appendix A: References A-1
Appendix B: Mixture Proportions B-1
Appendix C: Example Structural Calculation C-1
Appendix D: Hull Thickness/Reinforcement and
Percent Open Area Calculations D-1


In December 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully flew the first flying machine, sending the world
into the age of flight (National Park Service). This extraordinary accomplishment did not come easily. It took
the brothers years of experimentation and dedication to achieve their final and most important product. This
same determination and experimentation was used in the production of The University of Akron’s 2017
concrete canoe, Wright Way, whose name was chosen as a tribute to the innovations and impact that the
Wright brothers had on both the engineering and scientific communities.
In July 1871, the cornerstone of what would later become The University of Akron was placed. While the
main building, Buchtel Hall, would burn down in 1899, the foundation of knowledge and support on which the
college was established allowed for the campus to rebuild and grow into what it is today. In 1913, Buchtel
College officially changed its ownership and name to The University of Akron. Since this transformation, the
university has undergone a dramatic era of growth and prosperity. The College of Engineering was established
in 1914 and has continued to advance the field of engineering through experimentation and innovation.
The University of Akron, located in Akron, Ohio,
has been a member of the Ohio Valley Student Table 1: W RIGHT W AY SPECIFICATIONS
Conference since 2007. The most recent regional Length Max Depth Max Width Thickness
finishes were 1st, 4th, and 2nd in 2014, 2015, and 20 ft 14 in 31 in 3/8 in
2016 respectively, and an 11th place finish at the Primary Secondary
Weight Colors
national level in 2014. These past successes have Reinforcement Reinforcement
provided Wright Way with a foundation to further 197 lb
Harvest Wheat,
3/32 in Steel Cables Basalt Geo-Grid
innovate and grow, just as the Wright brothers
Structural Aesthetics
Wright Way has benefited from several Wet Unit Weight 67.0 pcf 74.7 pcf
enhancements from previous years' concrete Oven Dry Weight 59.8 pcf 61.9 pcf
canoe teams with the final properties shown in Compressive Strength 2,310 psi 1,623 psi
Tables 1 and 2. Notable improvements include a Tensile Strength 220 psi 170 psi
33% reduction in concrete volume, achieved Composite Flexural 1,160 psi N/A
through a significant increase in flexural strength, Air Content 2.5% 2.0%
which led to an overall decrease in total wall
thickness. Two new cementitious materials, VCAS™ and TX Active®, were introduced to create a more
environmentally-friendly canoe. Continuing the trend of sustainability, the team repurposed a surplus of
reinforcement and last year’s mold to construct a carbon-fiber practice canoe. This canoe was utilized in
weekly training sessions to allow the paddlers to improve their techniques and endurance.
This year, the W right W ay team made quality control a priority. Custom hand tools were created to aid in
concrete finishing and to create a smooth interior of the canoe. An additional process used to ensure that
quality standards were upheld was the act of performing compliance checks and calculation reviews
throughout the duration of the project.
The team graduated 40% of the members; therefore, to recruit and retain new students, social events were held
on a regular basis throughout the year. The team traveled to the Wright Brothers Exhibit at the National
Museum of the United States Air Force to encourage creativity for the canoe’s aesthetic design. Inspired by the
exhibit, an inlay of an early airplane design was integrated into the canoe’s interior. Team
leaders implemented new training programs to demonstrate proper safety measures, appropriate use of tools,
and concrete mixing techniques. This was done to ensure knowledge was passed down to the younger
members for continued team development. Emulating the dedication and innovation of the Wright brothers,
The University of Akron’s 2017 Concrete Canoe Team is proud to present Wright Way.


The managers’ primary focus was improving
quality control, maintaining an overall weight of Academics, 480 Finishing, 340
less than 200 pounds, and developing a
sustainable mix design. Preparing the team for
future successes, the managers also worked to
develop team involvement and maintain a strict, Construction,
practical budget. To ensure that the goals 220
were met, a project management team was 430

selected. A Project Manager (PM) and Assistant

Hull Design,
Project Manager (APM) with previous concrete Mold 32
canoe experience were assigned at the 280
Mix Design,
commencement of the project. The PM managed Structural 250
Analysis, 62
all aspects related to scope, budget, scheduling,
and recruitment. The APM was responsible for
training new members and handling all aspects of quality control. Four division captains were appointed with
the emphasis on safety, analysis, mix design, and construction. This system allowed for an even distribution of
work and helped to ensure all the goals set by the team were being met in a timely fashion. The remainder of
the team was comprised of 15 members ranging from freshmen to graduating seniors. With the leadership of
the captains and contributions from all the members, Wright Way was completed in approximately 2,000 hours
(Figure 1).
A critical path was determined by adjusting the 2016 Table 3: MILESTONES
schedule to accommodate new aspects in analysis, mix
Critical Activity Completed Date Deviation
design, construction, and training. These new concepts Final Mix Selection 4-Jan-17 + 4 weeks
helped determine milestone activities for the team Mold Delivered 10-Dec-16 On Schedule
(Table 3). This structure allowed the captains to Pour Day 28-Jan-17 + 2 weeks
estimate possible delays, and build in flexibility to Seal and Finish 1-Apr-17 On Schedule
ensure the project would be completed on time.
The captains were overly ambitious when approximating the final selection date for mix design. Additional
research and tests were necessary to meet the team’s goal of producing a canoe less than 200 pounds. This
delayed Pour Day by two weeks, pushing it from January 14 to January 28; however, the additional effort
showed promising results. The cylinders from Pour Day indicated that the mix developed adequate strength at
seven days. Due to the flexibility in the preliminary schedule, the team was able to make up the time by
removing the mold and beginning to sand while the canoe continued to cure.
A funding proposal was compiled and personally delivered to local construction companies and engineering
firms. Approximately $6,200 in donated materials and services were generated for the team from
the proposal. With a budget of $3,650, excluding travel expenses, the team fell well below its anticipated total
cost. Through savings in mix materials, reinforcement, and polystyrene mold, the team was able to affect year-
over-year budget cuts of $1,050 from Zipper II's estimated budget of $4,700. With increased refinements in
materials handling and construction processes, the team can expect to further reduce these expenses in future
To ensure safe work practices, the Safety Compliance Officer (SCO) monitored the construction and mix
phases of the project. This division officer reviewed Safety Data Sheets (SDS) to guarantee proper safety
procedures were performed. The SCO coordinated with the other captains to enforce the use of Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) in the work place.


The W right W ay Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan emphasized the organization of the team
and quality of the product being delivered. The first step taken to improve the quality began with stressing the
importance of proper procedures to new members. During the first team meeting new members were
introduced to the techniques and processes adopted for the project. Biweekly meetings, held throughout the
year, also provided a platform for members to reflect on past practices, safety concerns, and potential
improvements to current practices. Project managers and division captains were required to read and
familiarize themselves with the 2017 National Concrete Canoe Competition (NCCC) rules prior to beginning
their assignments. A printed copy of the rules was made readily accessible in the lab. The PM monitored each
Request For Information (RFI) and notified division captains when applicable to their scope of work.
Prior to mix design, material procurement began by taking inventory of the previous year’s surplus materials.
Expired cementitious materials and admixtures were appropriately disposed of. All potential supplies were
investigated by division captains to assure compliance with the NCCC rules. Local suppliers were then
contacted to acquire concrete and building materials that would be used throughout the mix design and
construction processes.
To emphasize efficiency within the team, a Dropbox™ folder was created to organize all documents to
allow easy accessibility for all team members. A GroupMe© thread was created
to post bulletins to inform members when activities for the team were occurring. Monthly schedules were also
distributed indicating potential work dates for the team.
Prospective division captains performed structural analysis and mix design
calculations. Upon completion, suggestions were made available to the BATCH MIX
pertaining captains after calculations were reviewed by the project managers,
faculty, and professionals. Proper documentation of the progress and findings of
these results were beneficial in the writing process. The design paper began with
the elaboration of the recorded outcomes and compared with their initial goals.
As the paper developed a compliance check was performed to assure all
guidelines were fulfilled according to the NCCC rules.
The engineering field is constantly growing and adapting to new technologies
and concepts. Preparing future engineers is the key to success in the real world,
and thus training and transferring knowledge to underclassmen was a major
focal point in the success of W right W ay. Weekly mix design sessions were
implemented to teach members about developing consistent concrete batches.
Members who attended these sessions were trained in the proper techniques for
measuring materials, mixing aggregate and admixtures, testing cylinders, PLACEMENT
and documenting the results. As the mix was developed and tested, concrete
batches were duplicated to ensure consistency of the design. Prior to Pour Day,
two practice sessions were held to familiarize the new members with techniques
required for placement, of concrete and reinforcement. TIME CHECK

The QA/QC plan was also designed to improve upon batch consistency. The
flow chart developed during testing, allowed the captains to easily monitor the
concrete and reject any varying batches during Pour Day (Figure 2). Density, PROPER
slump, and placement time were inspected for each batch to insure the
individual mixes were within the acceptable ranges. The procedures and tests
performed enabled the team to achieve the goal of improving quality control for
Wright Way.



Project Manager Assistant Project

(PM) Manager (APM)
Jessica Givins (Sr.) P Kane Schonauer (Jr.) P
Oversaw all aspects of Directed quality control
the project. Managed practices and assisted
budget, schedule, the Project Manager.
academics and funding.


Safety Compliance Structural Analysis Mix Design Construction

Officer (SCO) Captain Captain Captain
Logan Jacobs (Jr.) Charles Pigozzi (Sr.) Brad Harvey (Sr.) Richard Svetlak (So.)
Ensured safe work Researched hull Developed and tested Supervised mold and
practices were design and performed concrete mixes and canoe construction.
performed structural analysis. reinforcement.

Team Members
Andrew Needs (Jr.) C, MD, A Martin Malenic (So.) C Academic Advisor
Collin Getz (Jr.) C Micalah Yovanovich (So.) C, A, P Prof. Marcia Belcher
Chuck Vickers (Sr.) C, Mike Sedlak (Fr.) C, MD, P
Elaina Patitsas (Jr.) C, MD Monica Moody (Jr.) A
Paddling Liaison
Emily Green (Jr.) MD Ryan Moore (So.) C
Federico Bonaiuti (So.) C, MD Samantha Sebree (Jr.) C, P Ed Leszek
Kayla Hillegass (Jr.) C, A Samantha Thompson (Fr.) SA, MD
Kristen Farrell (Jr.) MD Zachary Taylor (So.) C, P

C—Construction SA—Structural Analysis P—Paddling

A—Academics MD—Mix Design


The structural team led analysis with the goal of designing a competitive canoe. To achieve this the team
focused on modifying the hull dimensions, reducing the canoe thickness, and determining the critical loading
The hull design for Wright Way was modeled after the 2016 Dimensions Minnesota III Wright Way
canoe, Zipper II. The base model of Zipper II was modified from Overall Length 20 ft 20 ft
the Wenonah© Minnesota 3 canoe and proved successful in the Maximum Width 34 in 31 in
regional competition races. Wright Way continued to build upon Waterline width 33.5 in 28 in
previous success by optimizing the design to increase the speed Center Depth 13.5 in 13 in
without sacrificing maneuverability. The relationship between Bow Depth 20.5 in 15 in
the Minnesota 3 and Wright Way is shown Table 4 (Wenonah, Rocker 1.5 in 1.5 in
In order to effectively compete during races, the canoe needed to have a hull that allowed for both fast straight-
line tracking and efficient maneuverability around the race buoys. To achieve this balance, W right W ay
included tumblehome gunwales. The inward curvature of the gunwales allows paddlers to have more efficient
strokes closer to the center of the canoe. The shallow-arch bottom is a combination of a flat bottom (which
provides quick turning) and a round bottom (for straight-line control) and was ideal for the various races.
The plumb bow with a fine entry line created a narrow point at the front of the canoe, allowing the canoe to cut
through the water with greater efficiency. Finally, the 2016 hull length was increased by 1 foot while the beam
width was maintained. This increased Wright Way's length-to-beam ratio from 7.4 to 7.7 at
the waterline, increasing straight line speed (Moores, 1983).
The hull thickness of Wright Way was reduced by 1/4-inch from
previous years to 3/8-inch. Punching shear was accounted for when
designing the mix and reinforcement arrangement. The team set out to
find the minimum strength required to resist punching shear failure by
using the ultimate shear capacity equation (ACI eq. (ACI
2014). An assumed 3-inch by 3-inch critical area was used to resemble a
paddler's knee in contact with the canoe. The dead and live loads used in
the punching shear calculation were the assumed weight of the canoe
(200 pounds) and the largest load case scenario of a male paddler (225
pounds), respectively. Once the capacity was determined, the required
concrete compressive strength could be calculated using ACI eq. Calculations resulted in a required compressive strength
of 1,600 psi (Figure 3).
Through structural analysis, it was determined that punching shear was the minimum design criterion. The
resultant of 1,600 psi required for the structural mix was exceeded by the W right W ay’s 28-day compressive
strength (ASTM C39) of 2,310 psi.
To determine the maximum moment, six loading scenarios were considered (Figure 4). The first case
occurred when the canoe was subjected to an upward lifting force at the extreme ends when it was removed for
transportation. The second scenario involved the canoe being supported one foot from each end by the
stands. The two-man race was the third case considered, with male paddlers assumed to be 225 pound point
loads. The fourth loading scenario investigated the co-ed sprint with two male paddlers and two female
paddlers, using an assumed 175 pounds point load for the female paddlers. The fifth load case was the two-
woman race. By inspection, the lighter load experienced during the women’s races created similar, but
smaller magnitude, resultants to the men’s race load case and was not analyzed further. During the final


loading scenario, transportation, the canoe
would be fully supported in the team’s trailer,
and was, therefore, neglected in further
analysis. 1. LIFTING 4. COED RACE

The self-weight of the canoe was initially

approximated based on previous canoes.
Including the addition of the top rail and 3- 2. STANDS
foot end caps, the canoe was projected to
weigh 200 pounds. The team used AutoCADTM
to produce 2D cross sections of the modified
hull design.
Using the “MASSPROP” command, several SELF WEIGHT
key aspects of analysis, including area, location
of the neutral axis, and moment of inertia were PADDLER LOCAL SUPPORT
determined. These values were imported into a
Microsoft ExcelTM file to organize the data Figure 4— LOADING SCENARIOS
and perform the analysis. The initial volume of
the canoe was estimated to be 2.3 ft3 based on
Men's Race Co-ed Race On Stands Lifitng Case
the AutoCADTM cross sections. 600

During races, the canoe’s self-weight is 500

opposed by its buoyancy. A function of water 400
Moment (lb-ft)

displaced and the specific gravity of water, the

buoyancy force acts through the center of 200
gravity of the displaced volume. This force was 100
calculated using the ratio between the self- 0
weight of the 2016 canoe and Wright Way’s -100 0 5 10 15 20
calculated baseline self-weight. Since the shape -200
of the hull changed very little beneath the -300
Distance from Back of Canoe (ft)
waterline, it was deemed an acceptable
assumption to use this ratio to determine the
buoyancy force for the analysis of the load cases with paddlers in the canoe. The buoyant forces and self-
weight were modeled as net forces acting in the upward direction on the canoe. The reason the forces are in the
upward direction is because the buoyant force from the male and co-ed races exceed the self-weight of the
canoe. During the analysis, the paddlers were modeled as point loads acting in the downward direction. The
male paddlers for the two man race were modeled at 4.5 feet and 15.5 feet from the back of the canoe. In the
co-ed load case, the male paddlers positions did not change and the female paddlers were modeled at 7.0 feet
and 13.0 feet from the back of the canoe.
The four critical load cases analyzed for maximum moment during this process were on display stands, lifting,
men’s race, and co-ed race. Each loading case was analyzed and plotted. The maximum moment, shown in
Figure 5, occurred during the lifting scenario, resulting in a 570 lb-ft moment occurring near the mid-span.
Utilizing the same process as the lifting scenario, a maximum moment of 270 lb-ft was determined for the
men’s race load case and 275 lb-ft for the co-ed load case. These expected moment forces are well within the
structural limitations of the mix design. After the completion of analysis the mix design was modeled to meet
the minimum criteria of punching shear at 1,600 psi.


The University of Akron's developing and testing team piloted W right W ay through a mix design
encompassing new cementitious materials, enhanced reinforcement schemes, and utilization of structural
lightweight aggregates. The team’s focus was to develop a mix strong enough to withstand the forces of
punching shear while still maintaining an overall canoe weight of less than 200 pounds. A secondary goal was
to incorporate more sustainable materials without sacrificing strength and workability.
Prior to initial testing, the SCO conveyed relevant safety information to the team members about materials
used in the development of the canoe. A copy of the materials’ SDSs were kept on hand in case of an incident
during testing. All personnel assisting with the mixes were required to wear gloves and masks to avoid
material contact with skin and inhalation of fine particles.
Zipper II’s mix design was chosen as a baseline mix due to its good workability and low density. Haydite was
integrated into the W right W ay’s mix to achieve higher compressive strength that adhered to ASTM C330
standards. Testing began with a percentage replacement of Poraver® with Haydite 8s. While initial testing
showed positive results for strength, these materials did not adhere to the goals set during the beginning of
development. Haydite 8s were determined too large for the layer thickness, thus they were removed from
consideration. Utilizing an improved gradation curve, smaller Haydite granules were selected to produce a
tightly-packed mixture. Eventually, a percentage replacement of Poraver® 16s, 30s, and 50s with Haydite 16s,
30s, and 50s attained the desired aggregate gradation and subsequently increased cylinder strengths.
In past years, The University of Akron’s
concrete canoe teams have used (Italcementi, 2009)
traditional Portland cement as the main
binder. However, to meet the goal of
developing a more eco-friendly mixture,
VCAS™ and TX Active® were
successfully incorporated into this years
design. Derived from a by-product of
fiberglass reinforcement, VCAS™, has
pozzolanic properties to assist in material
binding (Jones and Driver, 2016). This
material served as 18% of the total
cementitious content in W right W ay’s mix, reducing the carbon footprint with respect to conventional
concrete. TX Active® is a photocatalytic cement that can reduce organic and inorganic pollutants that are
present in the air (Italcementi, 2009). Exposure to UV radiation (sunlight) assists in the removal of noxious
organic and inorganic substances such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO)
from the surrounding area. An example of the photocatalytic reaction is depicted in Figure 6. TX Active®
comprised 44% of the total cement combination. The remainder of the cement content was composed of slag
cement (a steel production by-product) at 18%, Class-F fly ash (a coal burning by-product) at 15%, and silica
fume (a silicon metal production by-product) at 5%. The cementitious combination makes W right W ay The
University of Akron’s most sustainable and eco-friendly canoe.
Wright Way uses a combination of three liquid admixtures, Sika® ViscoCrete® 2100, Enhance™ PMT-1-RM
and Plastiment® ES. Sika 2100 is a high range water reducer used to increase slump and workability in the
mix. Enhance™ PMT served as a hydration catalyst to increase the efficiency of the hydration reaction, thus
reducing dry shrinkage cracking in the final product. Plastiment® ES doubled as a retarder and water-reducing
admixture. Plastiment® ES was used to delay set time during placement and was dosed slightly higher than
manufacturers recommended dosage in order to utilize the full benefit of its retardant properties. Without the


addition of a retarding admixture, the mix would set too quickly due to the high temperature and humidity
during Pour Day. Air 200 was explored as an additional admixture to help reduce the unit density of the mix.
The cylinders that resulted in decreased unit weight had unfavorable and inconsistent compressive strengths.
Air200 was not considered for the final mix design because of the inconsistency in the results.
With the success of integrating colored concrete for Zipper II, the team chose to continue this trend for W right
Way. This year, color powder was chosen as a replacement for last year’s liquid colorant, This allowed more
control over the water-to-cement (w/c) ratio and produced more defined colors. In order to achieve the desired
tan look for W right W ay, cementitious combinations were manipulated by replacing gray Portland cement and
black silica fume with their white counterparts. VCAS™ was integrated with white Portland cement during
initial testing. TX Active® was integrated in place of white Portland during final testing. The color was dosed
at 2.9% of the total cementitious material to achieve the preferred color.
Table 5: 7-DAY CYLINDER RESULTS The first developed mix, WW-1, had a 7-day
compressive strength of 1455 psi, 400 psi above Zipper
3"x6" Cylinder Test (ASTM C39)
II's 7-day strength but did not meet the punching shear
Mix ID Strength Unit Density W/C ratio requirement of 1600 psi. WW-1 utilized Haydite 8s,
Zipper II 1080 psi 56.6 pcf 0.57 which were removed from consideration during the early
WW-1 1455 psi 62.9 pcf 0.44 stage of testing. This led to WW-2, WW-3, and WW-4
WW-2 1620 psi 64.7 pcf 0.42 using an improved gradation curve of Haydite 16s, 30s,
WW-3 1800 psi 66.7 pcf 0.38 and 50s. WW-4 yielded the highest compressive strength
WW-4 1855 psi 66.8 pcf 0.38 of the four mixtures. It was also noted that WW-4 met the
*WW-5 1950 psi 66.8 pcf 0.37 team's standards for workability and set time. WW-5 was
**WW-5A 910 psi 58.4 pcf 0.38 the same mix as WW-4, except white Portland cement
* TX Active © replacing white Portland cement was replaced with TX Active® as the main binder,
**Addition of air entrainer not used in final mix design resulting in an increased compressive strength (Table 5).
Due to the limited supply of TX Active®, white Portland
cement was initially used until the desired compressive strengths were achieved. Air entrainer was tested in
WW-5A in an attempt to reduce unit density; however, results were less than satisfactory.
To account for tensile loads being applied during the races,
the team performed a split tension test following ASTM
C496 (Figure 7). It was calculated that the tensile strength of
this year’s mix was 220 psi, compared to 113 psi in the
previous year. The team also tested W right W ay's final mix to
determine its elastic modulus using a 6-inch by 12-inch
cylinder loaded in a compressometer machine according to
ASTM C496. The results of this test were used to produce a
stress-strain curve that determined the elastic modulus of
Wright Way to be 1300 ksi, compared to last year's 964 ksi. Figure 7—SPLIT TENSION TEST
Producing a canoe weighing under 200 pounds was a major
priority for the team. This was achieved by reducing the total amount of material in the canoe through
decreasing the total layer thickness. In order to decrease the hull thickness an equivalent flexural strength
needed to be developed during third-point bending (ASTM C78).
Akron's three previous canoes contained carbon-fiber mesh as the primary reinforcement, but suffered from
poor bonding and subsequent delamination between the concrete layers. The carbon-fiber mesh also had to be


manipulated to comply with the 40% percent open area INITIAL TESTING
regulation, requiring an extensive preparation time. 1. Single Layer
Research steered the testing team to use an alternative
reinforcement to the carbon-fiber mesh. After thorough
investigation, the team pursued a 10-millimeters by 10- 2. Double Layer
millimeters basalt geogrid. To ensure that the material
appropriately bonded, slab tests were conducted in flexural
loading under third point bending . 3. Single Layer
Concrete slabs, with dimensions of 15-inches by 4-inches
by 3/8-inch, were heat cured for 7-days to mimic the ADDITIONAL TESTING
canoe’s condition at 28 days. Initial tests confirmed that 4. Double Layer
the newer material improved bonding between layers. Basalt + 3/32”
Steel Cable
These resulting failures, however; were brittle and showed
unfavorable strengths. The configurations used for these 5. Single Layer
Carbon-Fiber +
initial tests can be seen in slabs 1 through 3 in Figure 8. 3/32” Steel
Results revealed strengths of 312 psi, 420 psi, and 324 psi

Through further research, the team integrated a steel cable

to better distribute the load. The additional reinforcement
significantly increased flexural strength and caused the
slabs to bend instead of break at the point loads (Figure 9).
Although slab 5 broke at 1,404 psi, 240 psi greater than
slab 4, configuration 4 was selected for better bonding and
ease of placement. With the mix finalized and
reinforcement scheme selected, the team was able to
confidently move forward with the preparation for Pour
Day activities.
Prior to Pour Day, all the mix components were pre-measured to streamline
production and improve mix quality (Figure 10). Cementitious materials
and color pigment were batched separately from the aggregates. By
reducing the number of steps on Pour Day, batches were more efficiently
mixed and distributed for the casting of the canoe. The quality of each mix
was checked for slump, unit weight, and workability time. Using a half
scale model, a slump test was performed to verify proper workability. By
packing a 3-inch by 6-inch cylinder, following ASTM C192, the unit weight
was determined for each batch. Finally the batch time was recorded and
monitored to stay within the 60 minute allowable placement time. All
results were recorded and passed on to the APM for review before
placement in the canoe.
All primary goals were achieved with the development of W right W ay. The
team effectively increased the flexural strength of the canoe while
decreasing the thickness of the concrete layers. In addition, both VCAS™
and TX Active® were integrated to successfully generate Akron’s most
sustainable canoe.


The Construction team's goals for the year were to improve the efficiency and quality of the final product.
New innovations were incorporated to improve the durability and aesthetics of the canoe. These ranged from
creating finishing tools, constructing a top rail, and implementing new training sessions.
Zipper II’s mold was used in conjunction with excess of
reinforcement from the previous years to construct a new, carbon-
fiber, practice canoe (Figure 11). Constructing this canoe also
provided an opportunity to train members on mold fabrication. The
final product proved useful to the paddling team by having access
to a new canoe that had a similar hull design to this year’s concrete
Following the completion of the practice canoe, the team shifted
attention towards the construction of the new mold (Figure 12). For
the past few years, the team refined its technique of building a
female mold using foam insulation that allows the team to model
the ideal contours and curvatures. This material was chosen as a Figure 11 —CARBON-FIBER PRACTICE CANOE
sustainable resource since it is a defective product that does not
meet the manufacturer’s specifications for sale and is normally
discarded as waste. To save on time and expenses, a 4-inch-thick
sheet of polypropylene insulation foam was utilized, instead of the 2
-inch-thick sheets used in previous years. This reduced the number
of sheets from last year's 21 down to 12. The time required to cut
the mold was sawn in half. A local shop assisted the team in
creating the mold using a 3-axis Computer Numerically Controlled
(CNC) mill, thus ensuring a high level of precision and accuracy.
When assembled, the foam boards were placed in a staggered
pattern to reduce imperfections, resulting in the most efficient use of
material. Threaded 3/8-inch rods spaced out every 16-inches were
used to assemble the mold. Each sheet was bolted separately to
minimize movements and a sheet of plywood was attached to the
top of the mold to create a sturdy work surface. Once the mold was
secured in place, drywall compound was applied to the interior and sanded for an improved finish. Two coats
of oil-based paint and polyurethane were applied to act as a release agent. Letters for the hull were cut out of
1/16-inch foam and adhered to the inside of the mold before applying a final coat of polyurethane. The top rail
form was created out of 1 inch diameter PVC pipe. The pipe was cut in half and wood blocking was applied to
secure it in place. Finally, an early-age aeronautical inlay was projected and traced onto a piece of linoleum for
later placement.
In the weeks prior to casting the competition canoe, two practice sessions were held. The benefits to
scheduling these practice sessions included familiarizing the team with placement techniques as well as testing
necessary batch sizes. Team members were taught to accurately place concrete in 3/16-inch layers with the
use of depth gauges. They were assembled by cutting an 1 inch wooden dowel rod to a height of 3/16 inch and
a nail was driven into the rod for ease of handling. In addition to the placement training, team members
working on the mix design monitored the slump of the batches and modified the mix to meet the desired
Prior to Pour Day, the SCO did a walk-through to check the safety conditions of the room. Inventory of PPE


was completed and replenished, certifying that enough masks and gloves were available during batching and
placement. The room was rearranged to accommodate greater occupancy and tripping hazards were eliminated
by taping all extension cords at the base of the wall. Before batching began, the SCO refreshed everyone on
the proper use and disposal of PPE.
All team members were then assigned a task consisting of either batching, quality control, reinforcement
preparation, or placement. The team decided to cut the secondary reinforcement on Pour Day. The basalt
geogrid is a loosely woven fabric, which easily gets tangled and deforms from its original shape. To increase
ease of placement and reduce the risk of damage, the reinforcement was cut directly off the roll and placed in
the canoe.
During placement, the “chase method” was utilized to reduce the risk of delamination between layers. For the
first layer, concrete was placed in the first five feet of the canoe. The steel cables were then laid at their
approximate location before covering them with basalt geogrid. The
second layer of concrete was then packed on top while the first layer
continued to be placed. This process was used throughout casting. When
the team approached the center of the canoe, the inlay was placed on top
of the basalt reinforcement and concrete was packed around it.
The 2017 team built two tools to help with placement; the first resembling
a float and the second resembling a trowel. The handmade tools were
designed with a rounded surface to transition in curvatures of the canoe
and smooth the concrete. The following day, the linoleum inlay was
removed from the center of the canoe and filled with the charcoal gray
aesthetics mix (Figure 13).
The canoe was enclosed in a humidity tent that the team built in 2015. A
space heater and four ultrasonic humidifiers were placed on the inside of
the tent and left on high for the first week. To prevent dry shrinkage
cracking, the humidity was gradually lowered beginning at 14 days for the
remainder of the curing process. The 7-day compressive results showed
Figure 13—PLACEMENT OF INLAY adequate early strength, which allowed the schedule to be pushed forward.
Curing took place for only 21 days instead of the original plan for 28
days. The removal of the mold and wet sanding took place while the
canoe was still being exposed to humidity. Disassembly began by
removing the top rail form, followed by each foam sheet (Figure 14). To
correct an inconsistencies that occurred during placement, 40- grit sand
paper was used to wet sand the interior of the canoe.
After the full 21 days, the end caps were completed. Polystyrene foam
was reused from the mold and sculpted it to fit into the ends. The foam
was then encased in concrete and an emblem was stamped in. The entire
canoe was then dry sanded with 60-, 120-, 220-, 400-, and 800-grit
sandpaper. Dust masks were required through all of the steps of dry-
sanding and an air purifier with a proper filter was running to remove dust
particles. The canoe was then sealed and sanded to 2000-grit. The team
finished construction by placing adhesive letters within the lettering inset
proudly displaying The University of Akron, W right W ay.


Project Schedule
ID Predecessors Task Name Milestone Duration Actual Start Actual Finish Baseline Start Baseline Finish Sep '16 Oct '16 Nov '16 Dec '16 Jan '17 Feb '17 Mar '17 Apr '17 May '17 Jun '17
28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18
1 Project Management No 214 days Sun 8/28/16 Wed 5/3/17 Sun 8/28/16 Wed 3/29/17
2 Recruitment No 20 days Sun 8/28/16 Fri 9/16/16 Sun 8/28/16 Fri 9/16/16
3 Team Planning Meeting Yes 0 days Tue 9/6/16 Tue 9/6/16 Tue 9/6/16 Tue 9/6/16 9/6
4 Fundraising No 50 days Fri 9/2/16 Fri 10/21/16 Fri 9/2/16 Fri 10/14/16
5 Monthly Progress Meetings No 218 days Wed 9/28/16 Wed 5/3/17 Wed 9/28/16 Wed 3/29/17
6 2017 NCCC Rules Released Yes 0 days Fri 9/9/16 Fri 9/9/16 Fri 9/9/16 Fri 9/9/16 9/9
7 6 Hull Design No 16 days Fri 9/9/16 NA Fri 9/9/16 Sat 9/24/16
8 Research Hull Design No 7 days Fri 9/9/16 Thu 9/15/16 Fri 9/9/16 Thu 9/15/16
9 8 Hull Drafting No 6 days NA NA Mon 9/19/16 Sat 9/24/16
10 7 Structural Analysis No 26 days Mon 9/26/16 Fri 10/21/16 Mon 9/26/16 Fri 10/21/16
11 9 Determining Cross Sectional Properties No 8 days Mon 9/26/16 Mon 10/3/16 Mon 9/26/16 Mon 10/3/16
12 11 Preliminary Load Analysis No 11 days Tue 10/4/16 Fri 10/14/16 Tue 10/4/16 Fri 10/14/16
13 12 Finalized Analysis with Measured Values No 7 days Sat 10/15/16 Fri 10/21/16 Sat 10/15/16 Fri 10/21/16
14 Concrete Mix Design No 124 days Sat 9/10/16 Sat 1/21/17 Sat 9/10/16 Wed 1/11/17
15 Inventoried Materials No 1 day Sat 9/10/16 Sat 9/10/16 Sat 9/10/16 Sat 9/10/16
16 Lab Safety Training No 1 day Sat 9/17/16 Sat 9/17/16 Sat 9/17/16 Sat 9/17/16
17 Research Mix Materials and Design No 29 days Mon 9/19/16 Mon 10/17/16 NA NA
18 16 Weekly Mix Design Lessons No 71 days Mon 10/10/16 Mon 12/19/16 Mon 9/19/16 Mon 11/14/16
19 15,17,16,12 Preliminary Mix Design and Testing No 53 days Mon 10/17/16 Fri 12/9/16 Mon 9/19/16 Mon 10/31/16
20 19,10 Finalized Mix Design and Testing No 27 days Fri 12/9/16 Wed 1/4/17 Tue 11/1/16 Wed 11/30/16
21 20 Final Mix Selected Yes 0 days Wed 1/4/17 Wed 1/4/17 Wed 11/30/16 Wed 11/30/16 1/4
22 21 Prebatched Mix No 1 day Sat 1/21/17 Sat 1/21/17 Wed 1/11/17 Wed 1/11/17
23 Construction No 149 days Fri 9/16/16 Sat 2/18/17 Fri 9/16/16 Sat 2/11/17
24 Reinforcement Ordered No 1 day Fri 9/16/16 Fri 9/16/16 Fri 9/16/16 Fri 9/16/16
25 Carbon Fiber Practice Canoe Constructed No 15 days Sun 11/6/16 Sun 11/20/16 NA NA
26 Mold CNC'd No 8 days Sat 12/3/16 Sat 12/10/16 Sat 11/12/16 Sun 12/11/16
27 26 Mold Delivered Yes 0 days Sat 12/10/16 Sat 12/10/16 Sun 12/11/16 Sun 12/11/16 12/10
28 27 Mold Prepared No 26 days Tue 12/13/16 Sat 1/7/17 Tue 12/13/16 Sat 12/31/16
29 Humidity Tent Constructed No 1 day Sat 1/21/17 Sat 1/21/17 Fri 1/13/17 Fri 1/13/17
30 28,20,21 Pour Day Yes 1 day Sat 1/28/17 Sat 1/28/17 Sat 1/14/17 Sat 1/14/17 1/28
31 30 Pour Interior Inlay No 1 day Sun 1/29/17 Sun 1/29/17 NA NA
32 30 Canoe Cured No 21 days Sun 1/29/17 Sat 2/18/17 Sun 1/15/17 Sat 2/11/17
33 Finishing No 47 days Tue 2/14/17 NA Sun 2/12/17 Thu 3/30/17
34 Canoe Removed from Mold No 1 day Tue 2/14/17 Tue 2/14/17 Sun 2/12/17 Sun 2/12/17
35 30 Sand Canoe No 34 days Tue 2/14/17 NA Wed 2/15/17 Mon 3/20/17
36 32 Endcaps and Inlays No 2 days Sat 2/25/17 Sun 2/26/17 Mon 3/6/17 Tue 3/7/17
37 35,32 Seal Canoe / Place Adhesive Letters Yes 7 days Tue 3/28/17 Mon 4/3/17 Fri 3/24/17 Thu 3/30/17 4/3
38 Display No 68 days Thu 12/15/16 Mon 3/13/17 Mon 1/16/17 Fri 3/24/17
39 Build Stands No 5 days Thu 12/15/16 Mon 12/19/16 Mon 1/16/17 Mon 2/13/17
40 Build Display Table No 14 days Mon 2/20/17 Sun 3/5/17 Mon 1/16/17 Mon 2/13/17
41 Build Cutaway No 22 days Mon 2/20/17 Mon 3/13/17 Mon 1/16/17 Mon 2/13/17
42 30 Design Paper No 50 days Tue 1/31/17 Mon 3/6/17 Mon 1/16/17 Mon 3/6/17
43 Rough Draft No 15 days Tue 1/31/17 Tue 2/14/17 Mon 1/16/17 Mon 1/30/17
44 43 Peer Editing No 8 days Wed 2/15/17 Wed 2/22/17 Tue 1/31/17 Tue 2/14/17
45 44 Final Draft No 4 days Wed 2/22/17 Sat 2/25/17 Thu 2/16/17 Thu 2/23/17
46 45 Final Print Yes 0 days Tue 2/28/17 Tue 2/28/17 Fri 2/24/17 Fri 2/24/17 2/28
47 46 Paper Due Date No 1 day Mon 3/6/17 Mon 3/6/17 Mon 3/6/17 Mon 3/6/17
48 44 Oral Presentation No 37 days Wed 2/22/17 Wed 4/5/17 Mon 2/20/17 Tue 3/28/17
49 Rough Draft No 15 days Wed 2/22/17 Wed 3/8/17 Mon 2/20/17 Wed 3/1/17
50 49 Peer Editing No 5 days Mon 3/13/17 Fri 3/17/17 Thu 3/2/17 Wed 3/8/17
51 50 Presentation Practice No 24 days Mon 3/13/17 Wed 4/5/17 Thu 3/9/17 Tue 3/28/17
52 Paddling No 203 days Sun 9/11/16 Sun 3/19/17 Sun 9/11/16 Sat 4/1/17
53 Paddling Practice and Conditioning - Fall No 85 days Sun 9/11/16 Sun 12/4/16 Sun 9/11/16 Sun 12/11/16
54 Select Paddling Team No 1 day Sun 11/20/16 Sun 11/20/16 Sun 11/20/16 Sun 11/20/16
55 Paddling Practice and Conditioning - Spring No 29 days Sun 2/19/17 Sun 3/19/17 Wed 2/1/17 Sat 4/1/17
56 37 Regional Competition Yes 3 days Thu 4/6/17 Sat 4/8/17 Thu 4/6/17 Sat 4/8/17 4/8
57 45 Ohio Valley Student Conference Yes 3 days Thu 4/6/17 Sat 4/8/17 Thu 4/6/17 Sat 4/8/17 4/8
58 56 Preparation for Nationals No 60 days Sun 4/16/17 NA Sun 4/16/17 Wed 6/14/17
59 Revise Design Paper No 28 days Mon 4/17/17 Sun 5/14/17 Sat 4/15/17 Sun 4/30/17
60 Design Paper Due No 1 day Fri 5/19/17 Fri 5/19/17 Fri 5/12/17 Fri 5/12/17
61 Revise Display No 36 days Sat 4/22/17 NA Sat 4/22/17 Sat 5/27/17
62 Practice Presentation No 20 days NA NA Fri 5/26/17 Wed 6/14/17
63 Paddling Practice and Condition - Summer No 57 days Sun 4/16/17 NA Sun 4/16/17 Sun 6/11/17
64 58 National Competition No 3 days Sat 6/17/17 Mon 6/19/17 Sat 6/17/17 Mon 6/19/17

Critical Path Task Duration Milestone

31" 3"
13" Steel Wire
Variable 3" 1"
Radius 8


Scale 1:10 Scale 1:1

Not to Scale


Scale 1:20

4" 5" SUBMITTED: 05/16/17
Scale 1:20
American Concrete Institute. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318 -14) and
Commentary (ACI 318 - 14). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). Standard Practice for Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory, Standard ASTM C192 / C192M-14, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). Standard Specification for Lightweight
Aggregates for Structural Concrete, Standard ASTM C330 / C330M-14. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Specification for Pigments for
Integrally Colored Concrete, Standard ASTM C979 / C979M-16. ASTM International, West Con
shohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Standard ASTM C39 / C39M-16b. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASCE-NCCC (American Society of Civil Engineers-National Concrete Canoe Competition). (2017). “Rules &
Regulations.” 2017 Rules & Regulations.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures
for Concrete, Standard ASTM 494 / C494M-16. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and
Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, Standard ASTM C618-15. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2015). Standard Specification for Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete, Standard ASTM C1116 / C1116M-10a(2015). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit
Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, Standard ASTM C138 / C138M-16a.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Test Method for Relative Density
(Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, Standard ASTM C128 / C128-07. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2004). Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Standard ASTM C496 / C496M-11. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of
Fine and Coarse Aggregates, Standard ASTM C136 / C136M-14. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.


ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2014). Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Standard ASTM C496 / ASTM C496M, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2015). Standard Test Method for Slump of
Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Standard ASTM C143 / C143M-15a. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). (2016). Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of
Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance, Standard ASTM C403 / C403M-16. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Daniels, J. (1903). (Photograph). Kitty Hawk, NC.
Jones, John, and Micheal Driver. (Sept. 2015). A n Evaluation of the Use of Finely Ground E – Glass Fiber as
a Pozzolan in GFRC Composites. VCAS. Vitrominerals. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.
National Parks Service. (n.d.). W right Brothers. Retrieved From
brothers.htm. Web. 15 Feb. 2017
Moores, T. Mohr, M. (1983). Canoecraft: A Harrowsmith Illustrated Guide To Fine W oodstrip Construction.
Ontario: Camden House Publishing Ltd.
The University of Akron. (2014). Cassin NCCC Design Paper. ASCE Student Chapter, Akron, OH.
The University of Akron. (2015). Floating Stone NCCC Design Paper. ASCE Student Chapter, Akron, OH
The University of Akron. (2016). Zipper II NCCC Design Paper. ASCE Student Chapter, Akron, OH
TX Active® The Photocatalytic Active Principle. (2009): 1-32. TX Active®. Italcementi Group. Web. 29 Jan.
Wenonah. (2017). Performance Touring / Minnesota 3. Retrieved From
Canoes.aspx?id=106. Web.