Northern Arizona University 2020-21
Concrete Canoe Proposal
CENE 476, Fall 2020
November 23, 2020
Marie Cook, Russell Collins, Kyle Julle, Scott Murphy, Ryan Wassenberg
Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Technical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 1
1.3.1 Concrete Mixture ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3.2 Reinforcement ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3.3 Hull Design ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3.4 Structural Calculations ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.5 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Potential Challenges .................................................................................................................. 3
1.4.1 Mix-Design ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4.2 Concrete Application ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.4.3 Mentee Involvement .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.4.4 COVID-19 ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Task 2: Mix Design .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Task 2.1: Mix Design Research ............................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Task 2.3: Final Mix Design ................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Task 3: Hull Design ................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Task 3.1: Hull Design Research............................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Task 3.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Task 3.3: Final Hull Design ................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Task 4: Reinforcement .............................................................................................................. 7
2.4.1 Task 4.1: Research ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.4.2 Task 4.2: Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.4.3 Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Task 5: Structural Design ......................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Task 6: Conference .................................................................................................................... 7
2.6.1 Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal .............................................................................................. 7
2.6.2 Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report ............................................................................................... 8
2.6.3 Task 6.3: Conference Presentation ........................................................................................................ 8
2.6.4 Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition ........................................................................................ 8
2.6.5 Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal ....................................................................................... 8
2.7 Task 7: Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.7.1 Task 7.1: Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.7.2 Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 8
2.7.3 Task 7.3: Economic Impacts .................................................................................................................. 8
2.8 Task 8: Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 9
2.8.1 Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation ................................................................................................. 9
2.8.2 Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation ................................................................................................. 9
2.8.3 Task 8.3: 90% Report ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.8.4 Task 8.4: Final Report ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.8.5 Task 8.5: Website .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.8.6 Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal .............................................................................................. 9
2.8.7 Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report ............................................................................................... 9
2.8.8 Task 8.8: Conference Presentation ...................................................................................................... 10
2.8.9 Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition ...................................................................................... 10
2.8.10 Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal ............................................................................... 10
2.9 Task 9: Project Management .................................................................................................. 10
2.9.1 Task 9.1: Budget .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.9.2 Task 9.2: Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.9.3 Task 9.3: Meetings ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.10 Exclusions ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.0 SCHEDULE ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Critical Path ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.0 STAFFING PLAN ............................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Staff Positions ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Personnel Qualifications ......................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Staffing Matrix ......................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................... 12
6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 14
7.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 15
Table of Tables
Table 1 Point Breakdown by Category ........................................................................................... 1
Table 2 Staff Positions .................................................................................................................. 12
Table 3 Staffing Summary ............................................................................................................ 12
Table 4 Cost of Engineering Services Summary .......................................................................... 13
Table of Appendices
Appendix A: Project Schedule Gantt Chart ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B: Staffing Matrix ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C: Cost of Engineering Services Matrix ...................................................................... 18
Table of Abbreviation
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
C4 Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions
CEIAS College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences
NAU Northern Arizona University
PSWC Pacific Southwest Conference
RFP Request for Proposal
SCM Supplementary Cementitious Materials
1 | P a g e
1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
1.1 Project Description
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Concrete Canoe Competition challenges
engineering students to design and build a working concrete canoe that can then be used to race
other schools. ASCE states that the goal of the competition is to “provide civil engineering
students an opportunity to gain hands-on, practical experience and leadership skills by working
with concrete mix designs and project management” [1]. Each year, the Committee of Concrete
Canoe Competitions (C4) releases a Request for Proposal that includes the requirements and
regulations for that year’s competition. Throughout the preparation for the competition, the
students are expected to build relationships with their faculty, suppliers, and client in order to gain
a deeper understanding of the practical engineering skills used. There are 19 different conferences
across the Nation where schools gather to compete with their concrete canoe. Each Spring,
Northern Arizona University competes in the Pacific Southwest Conference (PSWC) in order to
receive a final score from the conference judges. The final score is composed of four different
categories: Technical Proposal, Enhanced Focus Area Report, Technical Presentation, and On-
Site Competition. The point breakdown of these categories is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 Point Breakdown by Category
Categories Maximum Points
Technical Proposal
35
Enhanced Focus Areas
30
Technical Presentation
25
On
-
Site Competition
10
Total Maximum Points
100
1.2 Project Background
Northern Arizona University has been building concrete canoes since 1977. In recent years,
NAU’s canoe teams have placed as follows: 2019-2020 “Agassiz” placed 9
th
overall, 2018-2019
“VolCanoe” placed 11
th
overall, and 2017-2018 “Canoopa” placed 9
th
overall. Each of these
rankings was out of a total of 18 schools. Canoopa placed strongly in the categories of both design
paper (5
th
) and final product (6
th
). On the other hand, VolCanoe placed 13
th
in design paper and
12
th
in final product. NAU struggles with maneuvering the canoe each year which makes the
maneuverability of the canoe one of this year’s major goals. This year’s competition will be held
at University of California, Los Angeles in April of 2021.
1.3 Technical Considerations
1.3.1 Concrete Mixture
The mix design for NAU’s concrete canoe will be governed by rules drafted by the
Committee on Concrete Canoe Competitions (C4). These rules control the design of the
mix by limiting the materials available to contestants, constraining certain dimensions of
the canoe and the amount of mixes that can be applied to the canoe. A maximum of one
2 | P a g e
concrete mix will be allowed per the rules this year. In this mix, the cementitious materials
are required to meet common ASTM standards and all the aggregates must meet the
definition of “fine aggregate” provided by ASTM C125. At least 30% (by volume) of the
total mix is required to be aggregates. A minimum of 50% of these aggregates must be
composed of ASTM C330 compliant aggregates and/or recycled concrete aggregate.
Microspheres and cenospheres, such as Poraver, are not permitted for use as aggregates
this year. The mix may also contain small reinforcement fibers spread evenly throughout
the canoe.
The final mix is expected to weigh less than the water the canoe will displace, and have a
density lower, or very similar, to that of water. This will be achieved by using lightweight
aggregates and replacing some of the heavy cement with supplementary cementitious
materials (SCM’s). Air entrained mixes may also be used to reduce the weight by replacing
a portion of the volume of the canoe with air.
1.3.2 Reinforcement
Reinforcement for the canoe is there to ensure the canoe will be able to withstand the loads
that could be applied. Reinforcement must be implemented into the canoe in a way that
satisfies the rules set by the C4. Different reinforcement options will be researched and
tested before deciding a final reinforcement material that will be used in the canoe. The
two types of reinforcement that will be implemented will be reinforcing mesh and fibers.
Research and testing will be performed on the mesh and the fibers that are considered in
order to maximize the strength provided to the final project. The mesh will be placed inside
the layers of the concrete in order to increase the overall strength of the concrete. The fibers
will be mixed in with the concrete mix in order to help prevent cracking in the finished
canoe.
1.3.3 Hull Design
The overall design goal of the hull is to increase control for the rowers. The constraints and
criteria that support these ideas are to have a hull that is stable, efficient, tracks well, and
complies to ASCE Concrete Canoe Rules. These design goals will help the rowers be quick
on the straightaways and avoid tipping. The hull design will be first drawn using the
program, SolidWorks. This program will be able to create the hull in a 3D format. Multiple
design iterations will be completed in SolidWorks to fully understand the different hull
design features that effect the main goal. The multiple design iterations will explore
different stems, gunwales, profiles, midspans, bows, and entry lines. After a set number of
designs pass the decision matrix, those designs will be uploaded to the program called
MaxSurf. MaxSurf is a program that optimizes and analyzes the hull design. The program
also allows the user to make edits to design and reevaluate. The major impact that MaxSurf
is going to have on hull design is the ability to determine the resistance factor and model
the canoe in water before constructing the canoe. Modeling the canoe in water is going to
have the impact of being able to optimize the height of the canoe in the water and create
the best rowing experience. The final design will maximize the design challenges.
3 | P a g e
1.3.4 Structural Calculations
One of the main goals when designing and constructing the canoe is to ensure that it has
the required strength to perform in every aspect needed in the competition as well as be
able to be picked up and moved without crumbling. The structural calculations will take
place in accordance to the rules set by the C4 and will be performed to accommodate the
stresses and strains that the canoe will endure. Bending moment is the main type of stress
the canoe will endure which can cause it to crack and break in areas. The structural
calculations will be performed in accordance to the mix design, hull design, and
reinforcement that is selected by the team for the final product. The canoe must be analyzed
in a way that ensures the structural aspect of the concrete can support the stresses and
strains that will be acting on it.
1.3.5 Aesthetics
The final design and aesthetics of the canoe will reflect Northern Arizona University and
the ASCE student chapter. The aesthetics of the canoe is judged at the competition. The
main goals of the aesthetics are to provide a mix that can be applied uniformly across the
mold. The overall theme of the canoe and aesthetics is drawn from the great and mighty
Ponderosa Pine tree. The Ponderosa Pine trees in Northern Arizona can grow to 150 feet
high and live to be 600 years old. The Ponderosa Pine trees will be used for inspiration,
strength, and beauty for the overall aesthetics of final design of the canoe.
1.4 Potential Challenges
1.4.1 Mix-Design
Mix design is the first important challenge that the team will encounter as it sets the base
for the project. The challenges that go along with mix design is creating a lightweight but
durable mix. The mix must generate enough compressive/tensile strength while
maintaining an exceptional streamline in the water. Shotcrete will be explored as a possible
mix, which would require a less viscous mix due to the nature of the spraying application,
but the mix must also have a high cohesion so the concrete can adhere to a mold. Through
the process of trial and error, several mix designs will be created and tested for compressive
strength, slump, and workability to determine the final mix design.
1.4.2 Concrete Application
The application of the concrete is the second key challenge that the team must overcome.
The best application process will be tested and selected for canoe construction in future
competitions. The team has two options for the application process; by hand or with
Shotcrete. Each process has unique challenges that must be addressed and mitigated. Each
of the applications requires a different type of concrete mix. A challenge that is similar to
both processes is the reinforcement moving while the concrete is being placed. This issue
will be addressed by using smaller sections of reinforcement if placed by hand. If placed
using Shotcrete the goal is that the different application style and mix design will allow the
concrete to be applied with minimal movement in the reinforcement.
1.4.2a Placement by Hand
While applying the concrete, it is important to have an even distribution of
aggregate throughout the canoe. This issue could be solved by having mentees and
team members constantly spread and smooth the concrete as it is being placed.
4 | P a g e
1.4.2b Shotcrete Application
The challenge with Shotcrete is confirming the lifts applied are even and consistent.
The most efficient way to limit the error is to have a singular team member in charge
of the Shotcrete application sprayer. Then, trowels will be used to smooth the
applied concrete which will assist in assuring the concrete is evenly placed around
the mold.
1.4.3 Mentee Involvement
Mentees are students not yet involved in a capstone project who contribute their time to
help the canoe team successfully finish the project. With the restrictions of COVID-19 and
many students attending school remotely, the team could have issues with mentee
involvement. The team will perform recruitment efforts in order to mitigate this issue.
Involving mentees in the design process will also help to prepare them for what they may
do for their capstone project. A strong mentee program will ensure the sustainability of
NAU’s concrete canoe involvement for years to come.
1.4.4 COVID-19
COVID-19 has posed a large issue for the project’s completion. Due to the current
restrictions, the competition delivery has been changed from in-person to remote. Building
a full-size concrete canoe is not a requirement for the 2021 competition. The team has
decided that building a canoe would not contribute to their sustainability goal and therefore
has decided to focus on other sustainable options. COVID-19 will continue to force
modification of the competition and adjustments to the deliverables. The team is prepared
to be flexible with the inevitable changes that are to come and will work diligently to
successfully complete the project.
1.5 Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this year’s concrete canoe project are the client, Northern Arizona University,
Northern Arizona University’s College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Science (NAU
CEIAS), NAU ASCE student chapter, and team sponsors. The client is the most important
stakeholder as the project and its entirety fully depend on their satisfaction with the provided
deliverables and final product. If the team performs well in the Pacific Southwest Conference, the
success will bring positive attention towards Northern Arizona University as a whole and as well
as the College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences. With the team’s involvement
in the ASCE student chapter, a strong performance in the competition will attract underclass
members and improve the funding for the association. With the donations and support provided
by the sponsors, a positive result in the competition will advertise each sponsor as their
information will be on display for a number of students, schools, and professionals.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas
Two areas of enhanced focus will determine and guide the work done by the 2021 canoe team. A
decision matrix will be created and used for deciding which two focus areas the team will have
this year. There are options provided in the Request for Proposal and the team will also develop
their own ideas. The final two enhanced focus areas will decide the succeeding tasks.
5 | P a g e
2.2 Task 2: Mix Design
2.2.1 Task 2.1: Mix Design Research
2.2.1.1 Task 2.1.1: Cementitious materials
The team will research past mix designs used at NAU and at other schools in order to
develop a starting point for ratios in the mix design. From there, the ratios of cement to
cementitious materials will be analyzed and re-evaluated for the following mix designs.
The proportions of cementitious materials within the mix design will affect the overall
combined strength and weight of the final product.
2.2.1.2 Task 2.1.2: Aggregates
The team will research different types of super-lightweight non-microsphere aggregates
because these have been prohibited per the 2021 Rules. Fifty percent of the aggregates
utilized in the mix design will either be C330 compliant or recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA). Research will be conducted through contacting material suppliers to receive expert
consultation. Aggregates occupy the majority of the volume of the mix and will determine
the density and strength of the mix.
2.2.1.3 Task 2.1.3: Admixtures
The team will communicate with suppliers to receive expert guidance regarding the
permitted admixtures per the 2021 Rules [2]. Proportions of these admixtures may change
from the initial mix design to the final mix design. Admixtures are performance-driven
additions to the mix design.
2.2.2 Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing
2.2.2.1 Task 2.2.1: Slump Test
For each mix design cylinder, slump tests will be conducted following ASTM C143
standards in a material testing lab. The slump value describes how viscous the mix is and
its workability.
2.2.2.2 Task 2.2.2: Unit weight of mix
Prior to compressive and tensile strength tests, the unit weight will be calculated from the
cylinders. This will follow ASTM C138 standards. Unit weight will provide the necessary
information to calculate specific gravity, providing the team with the buoyancy of the
concrete.
2.2.2.3 Task 2.2.3: Compressive Strength
Compressive strength tests will be conducted at the 14-day and 28-day marks.
Task 2.2.3.1: 14-day break
A compressive strength test will be conducted at the 14-day mark for each mix
design option. This test will follow ASTM C39 standards. The 14-day break will
allow for a prediction of the 28-day compressive strength. This saves time as it
identifies errors within the mix.
6 | P a g e
Task 2.2.3.2: 28-day break
A compressive strength test will be conducted at the 28-day mark for each mix
design option. This test will follow ASTM C39 standards. The 28-day break will
provide the final compressive strength values that will be used in structural
calculations.
2.2.2.4 Task 2.2.4: Tensile Strength
Tensile strength tests will be conducted at the 14-day and 28-day marks.
Task 2.2.4.1: 14-day break
A tensile strength test will be conducted at the 14-day mark for each mix design
option. This test will follow ASTM C496 standards. The 14-day break will allow
for a prediction of the 28-day tensile strength. This will indicate the performance
of the fiber reinforcement within the mix.
Task 2.2.4.2: 28-day break
A tensile strength test will be conducted at the 28-day mark for each mix design
option. This test will follow ASTM C496 standards. The 28-day break will provide
the final tensile strength values that will be used in structural calculations.
2.2.3 Task 2.3: Final Mix Design
Once the team has developed multiple mix design options, completed the necessary testing
for each, and improved each new design from previous designs, the final mix design will
be chosen. This final mix will be considered in the hull design and reinforcement options
and will be used for structural calculations. The final mix design table will be included in
the final report and conference technical proposal.
2.3 Task 3: Hull Design
2.3.1 Task 3.1: Hull Design Research
The team will research geometric options for the hull design while following the
dimensional limits set within the Request for Proposal that was released by C4. The shape
chosen for the hull design affects the performance of the canoe.
2.3.2 Task 3.2 Analysis
2.3.2.1 Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks
SolidWorks will be used for the design component of hull design. The chosen geometric
shape will be implemented within the program. SolidWorks is a computer-aided drafting
program that is compatible with other analysis programs such as MaxSurf.
2.3.2.2 Task 3.2.2: MaxSurf
MaxSurf will be used to optimize the SolidWorks design through simulation. MaxSurf is
a program that analyzes the hydrodynamics of vessels. This will help the team to predict
the canoe’s performance in water.
7 | P a g e
2.3.3 Task 3.3: Final Hull Design
Once the team has completed the mix design research and utilized both SolidWorks and
MaxSurf, the hull design will be finalized. This final hull design will be used in the
structural calculations and visual depictions from SolidWorks and MaxSurf will be
included in the final report and conference technical proposal.
2.4 Task 4: Reinforcement
2.4.1 Task 4.1: Research
The final canoe design will include both a primary reinforcement, mesh, and a secondary
reinforcement, fibers. Research on mesh reinforcement that has been used in the past will
be conducted along with exploring other environmentally cautious options. Research will
be done for various types of fiber reinforcement. The research will indicate the predicted
strength of both the mesh and the fibers.
2.4.2 Task 4.2: Analysis
Analysis comparing the researched options of mesh reinforcement will be conducted
through a decision matrix that utilizes the material properties provided from the suppliers.
The strength of the fibers will be analyzed through tensile testing, done in Task 1.2.4. The
analysis for primary and secondary reinforcement will provide values necessary to
complete the structural calculations.
2.4.3 Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement
Once the team has performed the necessary research and testing for both fiber and mesh
reinforcement, the final reinforcement for each will be decided. The strengths of these
reinforcements will be included in the structural calculations and in both the final report
and the conference technical proposal.
2.5 Task 5: Structural Design
The team will perform the structural calculations in accordance with the rules set by C4. These
calculations will ensure the structural integrity of the canoe in different loading situations such as
a 2-man versus a 4-man race. The calculations will be done in an excel sheet so that the variables
can be easily edited. The results from the reinforcement testing and the mix design testing will be
included within these calculations. Final calculations will be checked by an expert before
finalizing the design.
2.6 Task 6: Conference
2.6.1 Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal
A technical proposal will be submitted for points toward the overall competition score. The
technical proposal will follow the provided outline given in the Request for Proposal
released by C4 [2]. The proposal will be judged based on the overall design components
along with the success of the project management.
8 | P a g e
2.6.2 Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report
The team will submit a report justifying and presenting the chosen enhanced focus areas
for this year’s canoe. This report will follow the guidelines set in the Request for Proposal
released by C4 [2]. The enhanced focus area report will be judged based on the selection
process along with overall summaries of the enhanced focus areas. It will also be judged
based on the problem statement, technical solution, results, and team collaboration for each
of the enhanced focus areas. The final item the report is judged on is the overall
presentation of the report.
2.6.3 Task 6.3: Conference Presentation
The team will create a presentation to be presented live to a panel of judges for part of the
overall competition score. The presentation will be given either virtually or in-person if
permitted. The presentation will challenge the team to enhance their competence and
knowledge of the project.
2.6.4 Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition
This new addition to the competition requires the team to interview one NAU Concrete
Canoe alumni to understand how their concrete canoe experiences influenced their
professional career. This video submission will encourage the team to engage with past
canoe members.
2.6.5 Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal
New to this year’s competition, each team is required to peer review another school’s
technical proposal. C4 will randomly assign a technical proposal for the NAU team to
review. These redlines will be done following the regional competition proposal
submission but prior to the society-wide competition. The NAU team will submit the
redlines to C4 prior to the submission deadline.
2.7 Task 7: Impacts
2.7.1 Task 7.1: Social Impacts
The impacts of the project on the surrounding community will be analyzed throughout the
course of the project. This includes the NAU Engineering Department, the NAU ASCE
Student Chapter, and the affected student and faculty population.
2.7.2 Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of the materials being used will be assessed and addressed. The
team will limit the negative environmental impacts through sustainable design and
construction practices.
2.7.3 Task 7.3: Economic Impacts
The economic impacts from the project will be addressed and documented throughout the
project.
9 | P a g e
2.8 Task 8: Deliverables
2.8.1 Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation
A 30% report and presentation will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline.
The 30% report will be the first rough draft submission to ensure the team is on track for
the final report.
2.8.2 Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation
A 60% report and presentation will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline.
The 60% report will be the second rough draft submission to ensure the team is on track
for the final report.
2.8.3 Task 8.3: 90% Report
A 90% report will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline. A practice final
presentation will be given in order to receive feedback before the final presentation. The
90% report will be the last draft submission prior to the final report. This submission will
include all completed sections of the report with the expectation of receiving final redlines.
2.8.4 Task 8.4: Final Report
The final report will be submitted to the Grading Instructor by the deadline. The final report
will document the overall design and performance of the team’s work throughout the
course of the project.
2.8.5 Task 8.5: Website
The team will put together a website that includes all team contact information along with
the deliverables listed above. By the end of this project, this website will outline the work
done throughout the project. Creating a website will allow for an electronic documentation
method that can be used by future engineering students.
2.8.6 Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal
The team will submit a Technical Proposal to the Concrete Canoe Competition to be
technically reviewed by the judges. This proposal will be judged based on the overall
organization and professionalism, technical approach, scope, schedule, fees, health and
safety, quality control and quality assurance, sustainability, construction drawings and
specifications, project schedule, mix materials and proportions, structural calculations, and
innovation. The final submission will encompass the overall progress of the team
throughout the course of the project.
2.8.7 Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report
The team will submit a report justifying and presenting the chosen enhanced focus areas
for this year’s canoe. This report will follow the guidelines set in the Request for Proposal
released by C4 [2]. The enhanced focus area report will be judged based on the selection
process along with overall summaries of the enhanced focus areas. It will also be judged
based on the problem statement, technical solution, results, and team collaboration for each
of the enhanced focus areas. The final item the report is judged on is the overall
presentation of the report.
10 | P a g e
2.8.8 Task 8.8: Conference Presentation
Two members of the team will give a live technical presentation in front of a panel of
conference judges. The presentation will be 5 minutes in length with an additional 10
minutes afterwards for questions from the panel of judges. The team will be responsible
for the equipment and location used for their part of the live presentation. The presentation
will be judged based on the performance of the presenters, the actual presentation itself,
and the answers to the questions during the Q&A following the presentation.
2.8.9 Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition
This new addition to the competition requires the team to interview one NAU Concrete
Canoe alumni to understand how their concrete canoe experiences influenced their
professional career. This video submission will encourage the team to engage with past
canoe members.
2.8.10 Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal
New to this year’s competition, each team is required to peer review another school’s
technical proposal. C4 will randomly assign a technical proposal for the NAU team to
review. These redlines will be done following the regional competition proposal
submission but prior to the society-wide competition. The NAU team will submit the
redlines to C4 prior to the submission deadline.
2.9 Task 9: Project Management
2.9.1 Task 9.1: Budget
A budget analysis will be conducted by the team before the project work begins to ensure
that the necessary funds are met to complete the project. Fundraising is necessary for this
project in order to purchase materials for the mix design, construction preparation, and
transportation. Fundraising will be conducted to meet the budget demands.
2.9.2 Task 9.2: Schedule
A schedule will be created in order to keep the team progressing throughout the semester.
A Gantt chart will be utilized to visually represent the schedule.
2.9.3 Task 9.3: Meetings
Meetings with the team, client, and technical advisor will be held regularly to ensure all
parties are up to date with the progress of the project.
2.10 Exclusions
There are no exclusions for this project because the construction component is no longer included.
3.0 SCHEDULE
The duration of the project from start to finish is 145 working days. This includes breaks for
Thanksgiving (November 21, 2020 through December 2, 2020), Christmas and New Year’s
(December 21, 2020 through January 4, 2021). In the schedule, working days are classified as
weekdays, Monday through Friday, 8 hours per day. The tasks within the schedule follow the same
11 | P a g e
numbering system as the tasks in Section 2.0 Scope shown above. The milestones identified within
the schedule are shown as black diamonds and include: enhanced focus areas, final mix design,
final hull design, final reinforcement, structural calculations, conference technical proposal,
enhanced focus areas report, conference presentation, R. John Craig Legacy competition, and peer
review of technical proposal. The sub-tasks shown under Task 8: Deliverables, are all shown with
their assigned durations rather than as milestones so that the team will stay on-task with the starting
dates of each assignment. Refer to Appendix A for the full Gantt chart.
3.1 Critical Path
The critical path is shown in red on the attached Gantt chart. The items included in the critical
path must be completed on time to meet the set project end date of April 29, 2021. The starting
date of each critical task will be closely monitored through weekly team meetings to ensure the
team stays on track with the critical path. The first critical task in the schedule is Task 2.1: Mix
Design Research which includes Task 2.1.1: Cementitious Materials, Task 2.1.2: Aggregates, and
Task 2.1.3: Admixtures. The next critical task is Task 3: Hull Design which includes Task 3.1:
Hull Design Research, Task 3.2: Hull Design Analysis, Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks, and Task 3.2.2:
MaxSurf. The following critical task is Task 4: Reinforcement which includes Task 4.1: Research
and Task 4.2: Analysis. The final set of critical tasks are under Task 8: Deliverables which include
Task 8.1: 30% Report and Presentation, Task 8.2: 60% Report and Presentation, Task 8.3: 90%
Report, Task 8.4: Final Report, and Task 8.5: Website. The items listed above make up the critical
path because in order for the project to finish by its deadline, these specific tasks must be
completed on time. If any of these items are delayed, it would delay all succeeding critical path
tasks and would affect the project end date.
4.0 STAFFING PLAN
4.1 Staff Positions
The staff positions for this project are as follows: Principal Design Engineer (PDE), Design
Manager (DM), Project Design Engineer (PE), Quality Manager (QM), Graduate Field Engineer
(EIT), Technician/Drafter (TD), and Laborer/Lab Technician (LT). The Principal Design
Engineer oversees and approves all of the work completed throughout the project. The Design
Manager is in charge of all things design, from mix to structural. The Quality Manager ensures
that all of the work completed meets the required standards while analyzing the economic, social,
and environmental impacts of the project. The Graduate Field Engineer works on all parts of the
project and must have their work reviewed and approved by the PDE. The Technician/Drafter
specifically works on drafting plans such as the hull design. The Laborer/Lab Technician
performs lab testing and mix design tasks. These staffing positions are summarized in Table 2
below.
12 | P a g e
Table 2 Staff Positions
Staff Positions
Title Abbreviation
Principal Design Engineer PDE
Design Manager DM
Project Design Engineer PE
Quality Manager QM
Graduate Field Engineer EIT
Technician/Drafter TD
Laborer/Lab Technician LT
4.2 Personnel Qualifications
Each of the five senior level students that will contribute to the project have taken necessary
classes that directly relate to the work done for the canoe. These classes include Mechanics of
Materials lecture and lab, Geotechnical Engineering Lab, Reinforced Concrete Design, Structural
Analysis, and Water Resources lecture and lab. Passing these classes ensures the students working
on the project have sufficient knowledge to successfully complete the project.
4.3 Staffing Matrix
A staffing matrix was created to outline the total hours for each of the staffing positions. The
staffing matrix is organized with task versus staffing positions. The team assigned hours for each
staffing position for each task listed in the scope of the project. For the full staffing matrix, refer
to Appendix B. A summary of the total hours for each staff position is shown below in Table 3.
Table 3 Staffing Summary
Staffing Summary
Title Hours
PDE
136
DM
120
PE
180
QM
144
EIT
210
TD
54
LT
100
Total 944
5.0 COST OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
To determine the total cost of engineering services, a matrix was created that shows the cost of
personnel, travel, lab use, and materials. The personnel descriptions and total hours correspond to
4.3 Staffing Matrix. The raw labor rates and multipliers were taken directly from Exhibit 8 of the
Request for Proposal [2].
13 | P a g e
The travel costs were estimated for material acquisition because the necessary materials are not
often locally available. Lab use costs refer to the use of NAU on-campus labs that will be used for
both mix design and material testing. The lab use costs fall under the category of direct expenses
when referring to the RFP [2]. Per Exhibit 8 of the RFP, the direct expenses experience a markup
of 10% [2]. The material costs shown in the matrix are the materials used during mix testing. The
summary table of the cost of engineering services is shown below in Table 4. For the full matrix
for cost of engineering services, refer to Appendix C.
Table 4 Cost of Engineering Services Summary
Cost of Engineering Services Summary
Description Cost
Personnel
$ 109,504
Travel
$ 216
Lab Use
$ 1,10
0
Materials
$ 113
Total $ 110,933
14 | P a g e
6.0 REFERENCES
[1] Asce.org. 2020. ASCE Concrete Canoe Competition. [online] Available at:
<https://www.asce.org/event/2021/concrete-canoe/> [Accessed 3 September 2020].
[2] Asce.org. 2020. [online] Available at:
<https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Conferences_and_Events/Event_Subpages/Co
ntent_Pieces/2021-asce-ccc-rfp.pdf> [Accessed 11 September 2020].
[3] “NAU Fleet Services,” Rental Vehicles. [Online]. Available:
https://in.nau.edu/comptroller/travel-welcome/. [Accessed: 20-Oct-2020].
[4] Liu, R., Appelbaum, E. and Shakoor, A., 2018. Cost-Effective Uses Of Lightweight
Aggregate Made From Dredged Material In Construction. The Ohio Department of
Transportation, Office of Statewide Planning & Research. Federal Highway
Administration.
[5] R. J. Collins and S. Palmer, “Market Development Manager at SRMG,” 19-Oct-2020.
[6] R. J. Collins and D. Wittenben, “Arizona Admixture Representative from BASF,” 19-
Oct-2020.
[7] BASF Diamondshield Glass Fiber Mesh 38" X 150' | Coastal Construction Products".
Coastalone.Com, 2020, https://coastalone.com/basf-diamondshield-glass-fiber-mesh-
38-x-150.html
15 | P a g e
7.0 APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix A: Project Schedule Gantt Chart
Refer to the next page for a full 11’x17’ Gantt chart.
16 | P a g e
Critical Path
shown in red
7.2 Appendix B: Staffing Matrix
Task PDE DM PE QM EIT TD LT
Task 1: Enhanced Focus Areas 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Task 2: Mix Design 8 40 22 32 40 2 52
Task 2.1: Mix Design Research
3
24
6
0
12
0
0
Task 2.1.1: Cementitious
materials
1
8
2
4
Task 2.1.2: Aggregates
1
8
2
4
Task 2.1.3: Admixtures
1
8
2
4
Task 2.2: Mix Design Testing
4
16
16
32
28
0
52
Task 2.2.1: Slump Test
1
4
4
8
6
10
Task 2.2.2: Unit weight of mix
1
4
4
8
6
10
Task 2.2.3:
Compressive Strength
1
4
4
8
8
16
Task 2.2.3.1: 14
-
day break
2
2
4
4
8
Task 2.2.3.2: 28
-
day break
2
2
4
4
8
Task 2.2.4: Tensile Strength
1
4
4
8
8
16
Task 2.2.4.1: 14
-
day break
2
2
4
4
8
Task 2.2.4.2: 28
-
day break
2
2
4
4
8
Task 2.3: Final Mix Design
1
2
Task 3: Hull Design 3 10 6 10 4 26 0
Task 3.1: Hull Design Research
1
6
6
6
4
0
0
Task 3.2 Analysis
1
4
0
4
0
24
0
Task 3.2.1: SolidWorks
2
2
12
Task 3.2.2: MaxSurf
2
2
12
Task 3.3: Final Hull Design
1
2
Task 4: Reinforcement 11 24 0 10 8 0 16
Task 4.1: Research
8
8
2
2
2
Task 4.2: Analysis
2
16
8
6
14
Task 4.3: Final Reinforcement
1
Task 5: Structural Design 16 16 16 6 10 2 0
Task 6: Conference 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
Task 6.1: Conference Technical Proposal
1
Task 6.2: Enhanced Focus Areas Report
1
Task 6.3: Conference Presentation
2
2
Task 6.4: R. John Craig Legacy Competition
1
Task 6.5: Peer Review of Technical Proposal
1
Task 7: Impacts 3 0 0 30 0 0 16
Task 7.1: Social Impacts
1
10
Task 7.2: Environmental Impacts
1
10
8
Task 7.3: Economic Impacts
1
10
8
Task 8: Deliverables 51 12 120 40 124 8 0
Task 8.1: 30% Report
2
12
6
24
Task 8.2: 60% Report
2
16
6
24
Task 8.3: 90% Report
4
30
6
16
Task 8.4: Final Report
8
16
6
8
Task 8.5: Website
1
6
12
8
Task 8.6: Conference Technical Proposal
16
30
6
16
Task 8.7: Enhanced Focus Areas Report
4
16
4
12
Task 8.8: Conference Presentation
12
12
Task 8.9: R. John Craig Legacy Competition
1
4
Task 8.10: Peer Review of Technical Proposal
1
8
Task 9: Project Management 34 12 12 12 20 12 12
Task 9.1: Budget
10
Task 9.2: Schedule
12
8
Task 9.3: Meetings
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Total (EA) 136 120 180 144 210 54 100
Project Total 944
7.3 Appendix C: Cost of Engineering Services Matrix
Engineering Services Cost Estimate
Description QTY Unit of Measure Rate (USD/UM) Cost
PERSONNEL (direct employee costs + indirect employee costs)
Principal Design Engineer
136
HR
$
165
$ 22,440
Design Manager
120
HR
$
148
$ 17,760
Project Design Engineer
180
HR
$
132
$ 23,760
Quality Manager
144
HR
$
115
$ 16,560
Graduate Field Engineer
210
HR
$
8
2
$ 17,220
Technician/Drafter
54
HR
$
66
$ 3,564
Laborer/Lab Technician
100
HR
$
82
$ 8,200
Personnel Total
$ 109,504
TRAVEL
Travel for Material Acquisition [3]
600
Miles
$ 0.36
$ 216
Travel Total
$ 216
LAB USE
Field Station
6
Days
$
110
$ 660
Materials Testing Laboratory
4
Days
$
110
$ 440
Lab Use Total
$ 1,100
MATERIALS
Cementitious Materials [4]
1
CF
$
8.
50
$ 8.
5
0
Aggregates [5]
3.5
CF
$
5.50
$ 19.25
Admixtures [6]
0.5
GAL
$
16.50
$
8.25
Reinforcement [7]
1
LS
$ 77.00
$ 77.00
Materials Total
$ 113
Project Total
$ 110,933