Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU

Undergraduate Honors Capstone Projects Honors Program

12-2006

Mix Design for a Concrete Canoe

Ryan Thomas Christensen
Utah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honors

Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Christensen, Ryan Thomas, "Mix Design for a Concrete Canoe" (2006). Undergraduate Honors Capstone
Projects. 833.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/honors/833

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by

the Honors Program at DigitalCommons@USU. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors
Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.
 MIX DESIGN FOR A CONCRETE CANOE

by

Ryan Thomas Christensen

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

of

HONORS IN UNIVERSITY STUDIES

WITH DEPARTMENTAL HONORS

in

Civil and Environmental Engineering

in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Approved:

Thesis/Project Advisor Departmental Honors Advisor

Paul J. Barr Kathy Bayn

Director of Honors Program

Christie Fox

UT AH ST ATE UNIVERSITY
Logan, UT

Fall,2006
Abstract

Each year the American Society of Civil Engineers sponsors a concrete canoe competition.

This paper details the work performed by Ryan Christensen for the 2006 concrete canoe

competition. His primary focus was on formulating a concrete mix to be used for the Utah State

University canoe. Basic information regarding the building and design of concrete canoes is also

presented. Finally, general competition results for 2006 are presented for the Utah State

University canoe team.

i
 Acknowledgements

To be honest, it is difficult for me to remember a time when I haven’t been in school so I

suppose it’s fortunate for me that my scholastic experience has been good. Over the years I have

had many good teachers and they have shaped my view of learning and the hard work that is

necessary to excel. Dr. Michael Johnson, Dr. Loren Anderson, and Dr. Laurie McNeill are a few

of my favorites. I also owe a great deal to Steve Barfuss for giving me the opportunity to work

with him. The greatest thanks of all goes to my wife Amy for love, support, and patience. She

has helped me to be a better person than I ever could have been on my own.

ii
 Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Team Members and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 1

Design Constraints .......................................................................................................................... 1

The Competition ......................................................................................................................... 2

The Mix Design .......................................................................................................................... 2

Concrete Explained ................................................................................................................. 2

Mix Requirements................................................................................................................... 3

Mix Design.............................................................................................................................. 4

Challenges/Lessons ......................................................................................................................... 9

Competition Results ...................................................................................................................... 11

References ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Author’s Biography ...................................................................................................................... 15

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1: Mix Design of Down Periscope ....................................................................................... 5

Table 2: 2006 USU Concrete Canoe Mix ...................................................................................... 8

Table 3: ASTM C33-03 Gradation Specifications for Fine Aggregate ....................................... 14

Table 4: Detailed Concrete Mix for 2006 Canoe ......................................................................... 14

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sil-Cell............................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 2: Standard glass bubble ..................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Photograph of Canoe .................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Swamp Test in South Dakota (That is snow in the background) ................................. 11

Figure 5: Preparing the Canoe for Racing ................................................................................... 12

iv
Introduction

Each year the American Society of Civil Engineers sponsors a unique event known formally as

the ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition. Engineering students across the United States

are given the opportunity to design, build, and compete with a concrete canoe. Not surprisingly,

most people have never heard of, nor considered the possibility of making a concrete canoe. All

the same, there are a number of dedicated individuals who just can’t seem to get enough. The

author, Ryan Christensen was a member of the 2006 Utah State University concrete canoe team.

His assignment was to develop the concrete mix to be use in the 2006 USU concrete canoe.

Team Members and Responsibilities

Building a concrete canoe is an extensive project, especially if the canoe is to be used in

competition. The 2006 USU concrete canoe team was composed of six members: Jared Bates,

Ryan Christensen, Russell Funk, Michael Jardine, John Pace, and Justin Woffinden. Russell

Funk was chosen to be the team leader. Russell Funk, Justin Woffinden, and John Pace focused

primarily on the construction of the canoe. Jared Bates and Michael Jardine focused on the

design of the canoe’s hull. Ryan Christensen focused on designing the concrete mix.

Design Constraints

It is no small task to build a concrete canoe. Adding a 76 page rulebook only adds to the

intimidation. Because the end goal of this project was to compete in the 2006 western region

concrete canoe competition, a brief description of the competition rules will be presented.

1
Additionally, the major points of the rules regarding the concrete mix will also be explained.

Last of all, the process of designing the concrete mix will be described.

The Competition

The 2005 ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition was made up of four main sections.

Each section was worth 25% of the overall score. The first section was the Design Paper. The

main portions of the design paper were hull design, analysis of the canoe, testing and

development, project management and construction, mixture proportions, and overall

presentation. The second portion of the competition was the oral presentation. The oral

presentation was judged on the demeanor of the presenters, the presentation quality, and the

answers given to the judge’s questions. The final academic section of the competition was the

judging of the final product. The final product judging was based on following the guidelines

and regulations established for building the canoe, a flotation test, and a final product display.

Last but not least, were the concrete canoe races. There were two categories of canoe races:

sprint and endurance. There were men’s, women’s, and coed categories for the sprint races. The

endurance race consisted of a men’s and a women’s race.

The Mix Design

Concrete Explained

Concrete is made up of a mixture of several different types of materials. The following is a brief

introduction to some of the most common constituents of concrete.

2
The first category is made up of cementitious materials. Portland cement, fly ash, and a few

other products fall into this category. Cementitious materials are defined in the 2006 National

Concrete Canoe Competition rules as “cements and pozzolans used in concrete masonry and

construction” (ASCE 2005). These are the materials that react with water to form a binding

agent. Another material used in concrete is aggregate. Aggregates are inert granular materials

such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone (Portland Cement Association, 2006). Cement,

aggregate, and water are combined to form the most basic type of concrete.

Many different additives are used with concrete in order to enhance specific characteristics of the

concrete. One such additive is fibers. Fiber materials range from very common substances like

polyester to the more exotic Kevlar. Fibers help give strength, particularly tensile strength, to

concrete. Admixtures are the final common concrete ingredient. The American Concrete

Institute (ACI) defines admixtures as “a material other than water, aggregates, hydraulic cement,

and fiber reinforcement, used as an ingredient of a cementitious mixture to modify its freshly

mixed, setting, or hardened properties and that is added to the batch before or during its mixing”

(ACI 2000). Due to the complex and varied nature of admixtures, an in depth discussion of

admixtures is beyond the scope of this work.

Mix Requirements

There were three primary limitations imposed on the design of concrete mix:

1. Cementitious materials had to be used in one of the following proportions:

a. Minimum of 70% of cementitious maters must be portland cement and 15%

minimum fly ash

3
 b. Minimum of 70% of cementitious maters must be portland cement and 25%

slag cement

c. Minimum of 50% of cementitious maters must be portland cement, 15%

minimum fly ash and 25% slag cement

2. Aggregate must fall within the range of “fine aggregate” as defined by Paragraph 6.1

of ASTM C 33 (see appendix for specific requirements) and must be a minimum of

25% of the weight of the concrete mixture.

3. The water to cement ratio must not exceed 0.5.

4. An air-entraining admixture must be used.

Additionally, our mix needed to be very flowable in order to meet the needs of construction

through the use of a male-female mold.

Mix Design

In order to have a starting point in designing the mix for the canoe, concrete mixes developed for

canoes used in previous years were analyzed. Two canoes had been built by USU students for

the 2005 competition. The first, “Frank the Tank” utilized a new polymer based air-entrainment

admixture called Miracon (Miracon Technologies 2006). Miracon has an appearance similar to

shaving cream and allows a much higher degree of air entrainment because of the small size of

the air bubbles and the uniform distribution of the voids. Through the use of Miracon, very light

weight concrete was obtained even when using conventional concrete aggregates.

Unfortunately, the design group was unable to maintain satisfactory contact with the developers

of Miracon and subsequently was unable to utilize it as a design material. As a result, the canoe

team was required to select a different baseline canoe mix. The other USU entry in the 2005

4
competition was “Down Periscope”. The details for the mix design of Down Periscope are

included in Table 1.

Table 1: Mix Design of Down Periscope

Amount
(lb/yd3)
ASTM 150 Cement Type I / II
(Cementitious Material) 520.2
Latex Emulsion Polymer
(Admixture) 299.5
Class F Fly Ash
(Cementitious Material) 126.2
Sand
(Aggregate) 377.6
Duralite Plastic
(Aggregate) 88.5
NyconRC fibers
(fiber reinforcement) 1.85

Though not as strong or light weight as the Miracon based mix, this mix was still very good.

The category of each ingredient is listed below the ingredient.

In developing the mix the 2006 canoe team started with these primary ingredients and then

adapted the mix through trial and error to obtain the necessary strength while still meeting the

construction guidelines. The light weight of the concrete was obtained by utilizing very fine

glass bubbles as the largest portion of the concrete by volume. After comparing the physical

properties of many different types of glass bubbles Sil-Cell 32 was selected to be used as the

light weight aggregate in the 2006 canoe. Though Sil-Cell 32 was not the lightest of the glass

beads considered, it was still very light with a unit weight of 12 lb/ft3. Sil-Cell 32 was one of the

strongest lightweight beads found with a compressive strength of 1800 psi. Perhaps the most

important reason Sil-Cell 32 was chosen for use as an aggregate was because of its shape. Figure

1 compares a magnified view Sil-cell with standard glass bubbles.

5
 Figure 1: Sil-Cell
Source: Silbrico, 1998

Figure 2: Standard glass bubble

Source: 3M, 2006

It can be seen that the standard glass bubble has a very spherical shape. The Sil-cell is much

more irregularly formed. The irregular shape of the Sil-cell allows for mechanical interlocking

of the individual particles in addition to the cohesion provided by cement. The mechanical

6
interlocking increases the strength of the concrete as compared with a concrete using standard

glass bubbles.

Sand meeting the gradation requirements of ASTM C 33 was chosen for use as the remainder of

the aggregate. The main concern in meeting the ASTM C 33 gradation standard is a result of the

very small size of Sil-cell 32. Nearly 100% of the Sil-cell will pass the No. 100 sieve but the

maximum percent finer allowed is 10%. Pre-sifting of the sand to reduce the amount of sand

passing the No. 100 sieve was considered as an option for reducing the percent finer than 0.15

mm. However, tests indicated that the Sil-cell was light enough, and the sand was sufficiently

low in fines that removing the fines from the sand was found to be unnecessary.

Using a male-female mold to construct the canoe required a very flowable concrete mix. In

order to have a flowable mix and meet the requirement of a 0.5 water-cement ratio Glenium

3030 NS, a high range water reducer, was used to reduce the amount of water required. The

manufacturer’s recommended dosage is 6-18 fluid ounces per 100 pounds of cementitious

material. Exceeding the manufacturer’s recommendation results in a mix that will quickly lose

workability. Additionally, a mix that is too thin may separate.

The second admixture used was Micro-Air, an air entrainment admixture. Micro-Air was added

in order to improve workability as well as decrease the unit weight of the concrete. The

recommended dosage for Micro-Air is 0.5-1.5 fluid ounces per 100 pounds of cementitious

material. In general, entraining air in concrete decreases the overall strength of the concrete

while increasing durability. The recommended dosage provides enough air entrainment to

7
provide better durability without sacrificing a large amount of strength. Increasing the dosage

beyond the manufacturer’s specifications will result in a relatively large reduction in concrete

strength.

Laticrete was the final concrete additive used. Laticrete was added in order to increase the

flexibility of the concrete. There was not a manufacturer’s recommended dosage available for

Laticrete. Laticrete is weaker then cement but much more flexible. Adding Laticrete can

increase the strength of the composite concrete mixture because of the added flexibility it

provides. However, when too much Laticrete is added to a concrete mix, strength will decline.

Two types of reinforcement were used. The first was Forta Fiber. Forta Fiber was dispersed

throughout the concrete mix. The second reinforcement used was composite metal rods. The

rods were located along each side and along the keel of the canoe. The reinforcement was

located in order to strengthen the areas of maximum stress.

In summary, the final mix was similar to the baseline mix and is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: 2006 USU Concrete Canoe Mix

Amount
(lb/yd3)
ASTM C150 Portland Cement 660
Fly Ash 141
Forta Fiber 0.0684
ASTM C 33 Sand 376
Sil-cell 32 109
Batched Water 355
Air Entrainment: Micro-Air 2.54
Glenium 3030 NS 18.5
Laticrete 330 141

8
Notwithstanding the similarity to the baseline mix several adjustments were made. The water

cement ratio was increased in order to allow for the use of the male-female mold. The admixture

proportions were also adjusted. A more detailed description of the 2006 canoe mix has been

included in the appendix. The final unit weight for the concrete mix was 66 lb/ft3 and the

compressive strength was measured to be 530 psi. It was difficult to further lower the unit

weight of the concrete as a result of the limitations on the water to cement ratio and the

requirement to meet the ASTM C 33 gradation requirements.

Challenges/Lessons

The best canoe teams have built canoes together for several years. This was a learning

experience for each member of the canoe team because none had previous concrete canoe

experience. One of our primary difficulties occurred when the option to use Miracon was lost.

The 2006 canoe team invested time in developing a mix based on Miracon. When that option

was lost it became necessary to develop a completely new mix in a very short period of time.

One of the results was that the canoe team was not able to perform the testing necessary to

ensure that the canoe mix was optimized for the design constraints. The primary result of this

was that the canoe mix experienced separation while it cured. This separation can be seen in

Figure 3.

9
 Cracking in the canoe

Figure 3: Photograph of Canoe

Notice the white grainy substance on the outside of the canoe. The white grainy substance is Sil-

cell that separated out of the concrete mix during the process of curing. Also notice the crack.

Separation of the mix resulted in weak areas that were particularly susceptible to cracking. More

time spent in testing the canoe mix could have eliminated this difficulty.

10
Competition Results

In spite of the difficulties, the cracks were repaired and the canoe was transported to Rapid City,

South Dakota to compete in the regional concrete canoe competition. Figure 4 is a picture taken

the morning of the swamp test. The canoe had to be fully submerged and still float.

Figure 4: Swamp Test in South Dakota (That is snow in the background)

Later in the day the canoes were taken to a local lake for the races. Figure 5 was taken while

preparing the canoes to race.

11
 Figure 5: Preparing the Canoe for Racing
The 2006 canoe team finished 5th overall out of the nine competing teams. Their highest ranking

was achieved in the oral presentation category where they finished in 3rd place. The 2006 canoe

generally finished in the middle of the pack for the races. It was just too long and heavy to

maneuver and accelerate with the best canoes. Much was learned through the course of building

and competing. Perhaps most importantly, lessons were learned that will provide a foundation

for future years of competition.

12
 References

ACI (2000). “Cement and Concrete Terminology,” ACI 116R-00 (Reapproved 2005), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ASCE (2005). “2006 ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition Rules & Regulations,”
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

ASTM (2003). “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates,” ASTM C33-03, American
Society of Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Miracon Technologies, Inc. (2006). “A New Generation Technology,”

<http://www.miracontech.com/technology.htm> (December 5, 2006).

Portland Cement Association. (2006). “Concrete Basics,”

<http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_concretebasics.asp> (December 5, 2006).

Silbrico (1998). “Sil-cell,” <http://www.silbrico.com/> (January 15, 2006).

3M. (2006). “3M™ Glass Bubbles K1,”

<http://products3.3m.com/catalog/us/en001/manufacturing_industry/specialty_materials/
node_7HKD89V3RJbe/root_GST1T4S9TCgv/vroot_FG8FTD9L7Wge/gvel_WHB23F5
LMRgl/theme_us_specialtymaterials_3_0/command_AbcPageHandler/output_html>
(January 15, 2006).

13
 Appendix

Table 3: ASTM C33-03 Gradation Specifications for Fine Aggregate

Source: ASTM, 2003
Sieve (Specification E 11) Percent Passing
9.5-mm (¼-in.) 100
4.75-mm (No. 4) 95to 100
2.36-mm (No. 8) 80to 100
1.18-mm (No. 16) 50 to 85
600-µm (No. 30) 25 to 60
300-µm (No. 50) 5 to 30
150-µm (No. 100) Oto 10

Table 4: Detailed Concrete Mix for 2006 Canoe

Mixture: The 2006 canoe mix

3 3
Batch Size (ft ): 1.5 ft Proportions as Batched Yielded
Designed Proportions Proportions
Specific Amount Volume Amount Volume Amount Volume
Cementitious Materials 3 3 3 3
Gravity (lb/yd ) (ft ) (lb) (ft ) (lb) (ft )
1. ASTM C150 Portland Cement Type: I/II 3.15 660 3.36 36.7 0.186 651 3.31
2. Fly Ash 2.20 141 1.03 7.86 0.0572 140 1.02
Total of All Cemetitious Materials 801 4.39 44.5 0.244 790 4.33
Fibers
1. Forta Fiber 0.90 0.0684 0.00122 0.00380 6.77E-05 0.067494 0.00120
Aggregates
1. ASTM C 33 Sand
Absorption, 2.7 % 2.40 376 2.51 20.9 0.140 371 2.48
Batched Moisture Content, 4.3 %
2. Sil-Cel 32
Absorption, 0% 0.18 109 9.67 6.03 0.537 107 9.54
Batched Moisture Content, 0%
Total of All Aggregates 485 12.2 26.9 0.677 478 12.0
Water
Batched Water 1.00 355 5.68 19.7 0.316 350 5.61
Total Free Water from All Aggregates 1.00 5.87 0.0940 0.326 0.00522 5.79 0.0928
Total Water from All Admixtures 1.00 108 1.73 5.99 0.0960 106 1.70
Total Water 468 7.51 26.0 0.417 462 7.40
Water in Water in Water in
Amount Amount Amount
Admixtures % Solids Admixture Admixture Admixture
(fl oz/cwt 3 (fl oz) 3 (fl oz/cwt 3
(lb/yd ) (lb/yd ) (lb/yd )
1. Air Entrainment: Micro-Air 12.6 4.82 2.147 4.82
2. Glenium 3030 NS 20.3 33.8 14.0 15.026 0.780 33.8 13.9
3. Laticrete 330 31.0 260 93.8 115.876 5.21 260 92.5
Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.823 0.823 0.823
Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.585 0.585 0.585
Slump, in. 11.0 11.0 11.0
Air Content, % 7.97 9.00 9.20
3
Density (Unit Weight), lb/ft 67.0 66.1 66.1
Gravimetric Air Content, % 9.20
3
Yield, ft 27.0 1.52 27.00

14
 Author’s Biography

Ryan Christensen grew up on a potato farm in Firth, Idaho. He performed well scholastically

while attending Firth High School. He graduated Valedictorian of the class of 1999 while being

President of the National Honor’s Society and on the State Champion basketball team. His work

ethic and accomplishments continued throughout college at Utah State University where he was

awarded a 4-year Presidential Non-Resident Scholarship. As a sophomore he was awarded the

Outstanding Pre-professional in Civil and Environmental Engineering. The Outstanding Senior

award in Civil Engineering was also bestowed upon Ryan.

Ryan spent two years in the Philippines serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints. He married his wife, Amy in 2003 and has an adorable 3 month old boy

named Thomas.

Ryan enjoys the outdoors, particularly hunting and fishing. His other hobbies include basketball,

reading, cross-country skiing, and playing with his son.

15