2014 Report Final Submission

Concrete Toboggan Team University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 Attention: Concrete Toboggan
c/o Paula Petrie E5 2001 January 15, 2014 Dear GNCTR 2013 Organizing Committee: This report, entitled Great Northern Concrete Toboggan Race Technical Report was prepared as the official entry by the University of Waterloo Sleighlors team in accordance with the 2014 Official Rules. Please find our dimensioned cross-sections and 3D toboggan model for the ski, frame, brake and steering systems, in addition to detailed explanations of each component and their compliance to the regulations. The report describes the final state of the toboggan. This design was prepared entirely by the UW Concrete Toboggan Team and has not received any previous credit. We would like to thank Professor Jeffrey West, Richard Morrison, Doug Hirst, the University of Waterloo Machine Shop and our sponsors for providing guidance and assistance throughout the design and construction process. Sincerely, UW Team Captains,
Terry Cheung Design Captain
Matthew Fairbridge Logistics Captain
Brendan Simon Finance and Sponsorship Captain
Great Northern Concrete Toboggan Race 2014
Technical Report
London 2014
Prepared for: GNCTR 2014 Organizing Committee
Prepared by: Sleighlors Concrete Toboggan Team University of Waterloo
January 2014
UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report
Executive Summary
The University of Waterloo (UW) Concrete Toboggan Sleighlors team has designed and built a five person toboggan with a concrete running surface to compete in London, Ontario at the 2014 Great Northern Concrete Toboggan. The intent of this report is to present the analysis and rationale used to design and construct our concrete toboggan. The UW team selected a three-ski section, arranged in a layout similar to that of a modern snowmobile. The two front concrete skis have a cross section of 50 mm x 120 mm, and is reinforced with one #3 glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bar, while the back ski has a cross section of 50 mm x 240 mm. Extensive concrete testing was performed to find a mix that maximized compressive strength while minimizing weight. The final mix design emphasized the use of innovative materials including polymer fibres, fly ash, slag, and silica fume. The resultant 28-day strength was 58 MPa. Each ski has anchors embedded at midlength to allow for connection to the toboggans superstructure. The roll cage superstructure is constructed with 2x4 timber. Within the framing, the four riders sit single file, with a fifth standing rider. The front most rider is responsible for the steering of the toboggan, while the rear most rider is responsible for the braking. The braking system consists of a main lever system, which drops a steel plate vertically into the snow. This will be operated through manual force. The steering design consists of a truss system, which is attached to the two front skis. In operation of the steering, the front most rider in the toboggan will be able to manually rotate the front two skis, causing the toboggan to turn. Sustainability and safety were the two main priorities to which the design of the toboggan adhered to. This report provides explanations as to how these were achieved in all aspects of our design. In conclusion, the UW GNCTR 2014 has designed a toboggan in accordance with the 2014 Official Rules. Our team looks forward to participating in the GNCTR 2014 competition in London, Ontario.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 4 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 4 Team and Spirit .................................................................................................................... 5 Team Theme ..................................................................................................................... 5 Tech Exhibit ..................................................................................................................... 6 Fundraising and Expenses ................................................................................................ 7 Design Considerations ......................................................................................................... 8 Design Constraints ........................................................................................................... 8 Snow Conditions .............................................................................................................. 9 Concrete Design ................................................................................................................. 11 Material Selection and Testing ....................................................................................... 11 Coarse and Fine Aggregates ................................................................................... 11 Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials .............................................. 12 Structural Fibres ...................................................................................................... 13 Chemical Additives ................................................................................................. 14 Additional Material Testing .................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.2
Final Mix Design ............................................................................................................ 14 Ski Design .......................................................................................................................... 16 Concept........................................................................................................................... 16 Loading........................................................................................................................... 17 Reinforcement Design .................................................................................................... 19 Anchor Design................................................................................................................ 20 Construction ................................................................................................................... 22 Frame Design ..................................................................................................................... 24 Concept........................................................................................................................... 24 Design............................................................................................................................. 26
1
6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.0 8.1 8.2 9.0
Braking Load Case .................................................................................................. 26 Impact Loading ....................................................................................................... 26 Frame Analysis ....................................................................................................... 27
Construction ................................................................................................................... 28 Braking Design .................................................................................................................. 29 Concept and Design ....................................................................................................... 29 Fabrication ...................................................................................................................... 31 Strength Analysis ........................................................................................................... 31 Steering Design .................................................................................................................. 32 Steering System Concept ............................................................................................... 32 Fabrication ...................................................................................................................... 34 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 35
References ..................................................................................................................................... 36
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Breakdown of Financial Income .................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 - Breakdown of Expenses ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3 - Macroscale strength estimates [Shapiro et al, 1997] .................................................... 10 Figure 3 - Breakdown of Materials used in the Final Mix ............................................................ 15 Figure 4 - Breakdown of Cementitious Materials Used in Final Mix .......................................... 16 Figure 5 Front Concrete Ski Cross Section................................................................................ 17 Figure 6 Rear Concrete Ski Cross Section ................................................................................. 17 Figure 7 - GFRP Reinforcing Bars Used in Concrete Skis ........................................................... 20 Figure 8 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Front Skis ................................................................................ 20 Figure 9 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Rear Ski .................................................................................. 21 Figure 10 - Finished Formwork For Concrete Skis Being Sanded By Team Members ............... 23 Figure 11 - Casting of Rear Ski And Consolidation Using Vibration Table ................................ 24 Figure 12 Wireframe Model of Toboggan and Frame ............................................................... 25 Figure 13 SAP2000 Analytical Model and Member Numbering .............................................. 27 Figure 14 - Members of the Concrete Toboggan Team Preparing the Framing ........................... 29 Figure 15 - Braking Assembly ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 16 - Braking Blade Bolted to Main Braking System ......................................................... 31 Figure 17 - VonMises stress for Steel Plate. ................................................................................. 32 Figure 18 - Steering System Concept ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 19 - Steering System Turning Limits ................................................................................ 35
List of Tables
Table 1 - Climatic Data for London, Ontario in January (Environment Canada) ........................ 10 Table 2 - Prices of Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials ..................................... 12 Table 3 - Mix Proportions for Fibre Testing ................................................................................. 13 Table 4 Assumed Point Loading on Skis ................................................................................... 18 Table 5 Assumed Factored Loading on Skis ............................................................................. 18 Table 6 - Summary of Anchor Design .......................................................................................... 22 Table 7 Maximum Member Forces Exhibited by SAP2000 Model .......................................... 28
List of Appendices
A Concrete Mix.......................................................................................................................... 38 B Ski Design .............................................................................................................................. 68 C Framing .................................................................................................................................. 89 D Braking ................................................................................................................................... 95
3
1.0
Introduction
The intent of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Great Northern Concrete Toboggan Race and the requirements of each team. The purpose of this report is presented, and the scope of design is summarized.
1.1
Background
The Great Northern Concrete Toboggan Race (GNCTR) is an annual competition open to engineering student teams from universities across Canada. Teams are required to design, construct, and race a toboggan weighing no more than 300 pounds. The toboggan must have a concrete running surface along the snow, and also must be equipped with braking and steering systems. The competition provides engineering students with an opportunity to exercise creativity, and also an environment to practice and develop their engineering acumen in a real project setting. Entries into the competition are judged on technical proficiency through the sleds concrete mix design, frame and braking systems, as well as on the teams creativity, through the teams theme, spirit, and enthusiasm at the competition. On January 28th, 2014, UWs Sleighlors Team will travel to London, Ontario to compete at the 2014 GNCTR in London, Ontario.
1.2
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present the design and construction process of the Sleighlors concrete toboggan for the 2014 GNCTR. Included in the report are dimensioned drawings and specifications produced in the design process. This report discusses the rationale considered in the concrete and framing design, as well as the thought process in the designs for the braking and steering systems. The analysis procedure and results, as well as the construction phase of the toboggan will also be described.
1.3
Scope
The scope of the design completed by the 2014 University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan Team includes the concrete mix design, running surface design and reinforcement, superstructure framing design, steering system, and braking system. The report will outline the design and construction of each of the toboggans many components, as well as briefly discuss the results from the loading analysis and testing of the components. The design of the toboggan was
4
completed in accordance to the 2014 Official Rules. No performance testing was completed on the toboggan, and as such are not included in the scope of this report.
2.0
Team and Spirit
The intent of this chapter is to introduce the University of Waterloos theme and reasoning for its selection. This chapter also provides an overview of our teams Technical Exhibit to be displayed at GNCTR 2014. Finally, the teams fundraising and outreach initiatives are summarized.
2.1
Team Theme
In our early stages of planning as a team, we decided the best way to get the theme that most adequately reflected our unique band of individuals would be to allow everyone to come up with a theme of their choosing, and debate its merits in an open forum. As we have a team of nineteen members, we ended up having nineteen themes. Through many talks in which themes were further developed and debated, we managed to narrow our scope down to three excellent themes. The best way to describe the process through which we debated and eliminated the many excellent themes that were proposed is in the form of a classic joke, in which three things with nothing in common, walk into a bar, hilarity ensues, and one emerges on top. And it goes like this...
A super hero, an international man of mystery and a sailor walk into a bar. The bartender turns to the super hero and says "What can I get ya'?" The super hero then says, "Just orange juice for me, I must always remain vigilant in case danger should arise!" (And, like a flash, the super hero was eliminated, because who wants to spend 5 days partying with that guy?) Next, the bartender turns to the international man of mystery and says "What can I get ya'?" The international man of mystery replies, "Gin martini, and make it dirty, as dirty as the blond I took home last night." (And with that, we bid farewell to the idea of the international man of mystery, because while he was entertaining, his act got old fast.) Finally, the bartender turns to the sailor, who is no longer in his seat. He turns around, and sees the sailor at the other end
5
of the bar, serving drinks to everyone the bartender has been ignoring. The sailor then turns to the bartender and says "The navy waits for no man!" And with that, we had our theme. Although not quite in as silly a manner as was described above, we did have a spirited discussion of all three potential themes, ranging from serious and intellectual, to silly and nonsensical. Upon the completion of our presentations and debates on the various themes proposed, our team voted between the three top themes in order to reveal what the 2014 University of Waterloo team would be competing as. In a very close vote, Sleighlors managed to squeak ahead due to the tenacity of the team members responsible for its inception. The theme Sleighlors was chosen primarily due to its versatile nature as a professional theme. Through our experience at previous GNCTR events, we noticed that the themes relating to professions often received the best responses from other teams at the competition. It also offered us a unique opportunity in the design of both our technical exhibit and our sled. Finally, the theme offered to us a range of chants and mannerisms through which we can portray ourselves to our fellow teams and be easily recognizable as sailors, without having to tell people what we are. Ultimately, the most important part of the theme decision for our team this year was not the winning theme itself, but the process through which we chose it. The many meetings, discussions and brainstorming sessions we had brought us closer as a team, uniting us in our mission to choose a fun, recognizable and unique theme through which to compete. The University of Waterloo 2014 Concrete Toboggan team is proud to compete together under the Sleighlors theme.
2.2
Tech Exhibit
The technical exhibit will focus on the presentation of technical information with the design of the technical exhibit being focussed on the theme, sleighlors. The technical exhibit will be designed and decorated to look like a section of a submarine, with straight walls and a circular ceiling. The walls of the exhibit will have portholes containing samples of materials and members; posters containing associated information will be mounted on the wall beside the portholes. The exhibit
6
will also include a telescope in the centre and an interactive console on one side with games and information. The back of the exhibit will have a hatch incorporated into it for aesthetics. The team will make use of an automated laser cutting machine to make the circular cuts required for the exhibit quick and easy. All other works will be done by hand, including: other wood working, wiring, painting, etc. Special focus is being given to ensure ease of assembly of the exhibit at the competition. To ensure ease of assembly on site the exhibit will be constructed and shipped in modules attached primarily with bolts. Wiring connections between modules will be connected with male/female connections. Aesthetics will be made to simply line up upon assembly. Sustainability is always a key consideration in every aspect of the concrete toboggan competition and as such numerous carbon foot print reducing measures have been taken in the design of the exhibit. A key measure is the reuse of scrap materials such as: plywood, 2x4 timber members, flooring, and wiring and electrical conduit if possible. The use of an interactive computer setup is not only engaging for other participants but also reduces the amount of materials required for posters. Finally, the absence of any nails in the design means that the exhibit can be deconstructed afterwards and materials can be repurposed for use by: future GNCTR teams, lab technicians for testing apparatus construction, or other engineering design teams.
2.3
Fundraising and Expenses
The University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan Team raises thousands of dollars in funding every year to support design, spirit and logistics expenses. Our budget for the 2014 race was $15,639 raised from three main sources: internal campus sponsorship, external campus sponsorship, and team event fundraising. Internal campus sponsorship amounts to $4,833 from the University of Waterloo Faculty of Engineering, Waterloo Engineering Society and the Department of Civil Engineering. External funding comes from a variety of sponsorship from various leading organizations in Waterloo Region and large engineering companies across Canada. External funding this year amounts to $9000. Rounding out our budget, team event fundraising comes from our famous Boggan Burger BBQs held weekly on campus as well as specialized catering events done by the team during the spring and fall terms. The breakdown of income sources is shown in Figure 1.
7
Figure 1 - Breakdown of Financial Income
Money raised during the term goes towards various expenses including design, construction, spirit, registration, travel and accommodation. The breakdown of expenses can be seen in Figure 2.
3.0
3.1
Design Considerations
Design Constraints
The official rules dictate that the toboggan and all of its components must not weigh more than 300 lbs (136.1 kg), and must safely accommodate five riders on the toboggan. The concrete mix of which the running surfaces are to be constructed of must have at least 30% Portland Cement by mass of cementitious materials. A roll cage must be provided in the superstructure, and the roll cage must provide a clear space of at least 5 cm above the tallest riders helmets. Finally, the toboggan must accommodate for braking and steering components, both of which must be designed to safely navigate and stop the toboggan under competition conditions.
2014 EXPENSE Design and Construction Skis/Concrete Mix Frame Mechanical Testing Tech Ex $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,100 100 750 750 500 1,000
% of Total 19.8% 0.6% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2% 6.4%
Spirit Costumes Team T-Shirts Swag, Items, Etc. Other
$ $ $ $ $
3,050 1,500 250 800 500
19.5% 9.6% 1.6% 5.1% 3.2%
Business Initial Registration Final Registration Damage Deposit Hotel Accommodations Transportation
$ $ $ $ $ $
7,989 750 3,325 475 2,689 750
51.1% 4.8% 21.3% 3.0% 17.2% 4.8%
Contingency
1,500
9.6%
TOTAL EXPENSES
15,639
100.0%
Figure 2 - Breakdown of Expenses
3.2
Snow Conditions
The toboggan design is heavily influenced by the climatic data for London in January. Data collected from Environment Canada is summarized in Table 1.
UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report Table 1 - Climatic Data for London, Ontario in January (Environment Canada) Daily Average (C) -4.2 Daily Maximum (C) -0.3 Daily Minimum (C) -8.1 Extreme Maximum (C) 12.6 Extreme Minimum (C) -18.3 Snowfall (cm) 16.1
With the competition held in London, the snow conditions may be artificial and groomed. To determine the snowpack of the toboggan on the hill, determination of compressive strength can be gathered from Figure 3. This figure provides results based on 33 snow samples and a range of densities.
Figure 3 - Macroscale strength estimates [Shapiro et al, 1997]
It should be noted that predicting compressive strength is difficult due to snows nonhomogeneous nature. This value is heavily affected by the virginity of the snow, as well as its specific gravity, temperature and degree of bond. For the purposes of this report, two conditions were used. For low density conditions of 125kg/m3, the compressive resistance is 0 to 2kPa. For the high density artificial conditions, a density between 300 and 500kg/m3 can be used. In London, where temperatures are more consistently below freezing and snowfall is considerably
10
heavy, an average snow density was assumed. Using a value of 400kg/m3, the resultant compressive resistance is assumed to be 150kPa.
4.0
Concrete Design
The concrete mix design for the University of Waterloos concrete toboggan was developed based on extensive testing conducted as per ASTM standards, as well as previous concrete mixes from previous teams toboggans. A total of thirteen mixes were tested between January 2013 and January 2014. The summary of these results are presented in Appendix A.1. The goal of the concrete design mix was to achieve a concrete strength of at least 50 MPa, while also utilizing larger than normal concentrations of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The incorporation of SCMs helps towards developing and utilizing a more sustainable concrete mix than normal. Innovative materials such as carbon nanotubes were also considered in our concrete mix design and testing.
4.1
Material Selection and Testing
4.1.1 Coarse and Fine Aggregates Coarse aggregate plays an important role on the strength of the concrete and its ease of placement. To create a high strength concrete, a smaller diameter coarse aggregate was required, to allow for better consolidation around the reinforcement. Therefore, 10mm crushed gravel was chosen over the 20mm pea gravel for all mix designs. Based on industry prices, the unit price for 10mm crushed gravel is assumed to be $60.00/tonne. The density and absorption of the 10mm crushed gravel are 1800 Kg/m3 and 1.75%, respectively. In addition, standard laboratory sand was used as fine aggregate for its well graded property, and also because there was readily available without extra financial expenditure. The fineness and consistency of the laboratory sand works towards reducing air voids in the mix, and also provides better interlocking characteristics. The unit price for standard laboratory sand is assumed to be $40/tonne based on industry prices. The density and absorption of the lab sand are 1586 Kg/m3 and 1.25%, respectively.
11
4.1.2 Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials The unit cost of cement and supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) has been provided in the 2014 CIRCA Award criteria and scoring sheet, allowing the concrete mixes to be evaluated. Table 2 lists the prices correlated with the appropriate cement and SCMs.
Table 2 - Prices of Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials
Cements and SCMs Type 10 (GU) Portland Cement Type GUL Portland Cement Type HE Portland Cement Fly Ash Slag Silica Fume
Price ($/tonne) 175 175 200 100 160 600
Type 10 General Use (GU) Portland Cement was readily available for use at the University of Waterloo, and was chosen over Type GUL and Type HE, so to save costs as the latter were not required. Silica fume, fly ash, and slag were all used in the concrete mix because of their low environmental impact, as well as their generally positive effect on concrete strength. The three SCMs are byproducts of processes that were once considered waste. Silica fume is composed of very fine spherical particles, allowing it to fill voids in the mixture, and subsequently increase the reaction with limestone cement. This results in both an increase in the concretes strength as well as a smoother texture in the finished product. The chemical nature of the silica fume particles results in a greater amount of water being required to make the mixture workable. However, it is also possible to make use of high range water reducing admixtures to limit the loss of strength associated with a high water-cement ratio. Fly ash is a byproduct of coal combustion, and similar to silica fume, is composed of fine spherical particles. The use of fly ash in concrete mixtures increases concrete strength while decreasing permeability. The spherical geometry of the fly ash particles also improves workability and finishability, while also decreasing the amount of water required in the mixture. However, fly ash
12
also delays the time required for the concrete to achieve its ultimate strength. This can be counteracted through the addition of silica fume, as well as a reduction in the water to cement ratio. Lastly, slag is created as a byproduct of iron production, and reacts with cement to increase workability, finishability, and ultimate strength. Similar to fly ash, slag slows the initial hydration of Portland Cement, and the use of slag lowers early concrete strength. 4.1.3 Structural Fibres Structural fibres were considered in our concrete mix, as it contributes towards increasing concrete flexural strength, and eliminates the need for welded-wire mesh (WWM) and conventional steel bars as nominal reinforcement. The concrete skis used on the University of Waterloo toboggan use polypropylene synthetic macro-fibres as a replacement for WWM, as it provides increased resistance to impact, fatigue, flexural cracking, micro-cracking and macro-cracking. Trial batches were mixed and tested to identify the ideal proportioning of the fibres. The density and tensile strength of the fibres are 920 Kg/m3 and 600 MPa respectively.
Table 3 - Mix Proportions for Fibre Testing
Mix Label Materials/Properties Fibre (% volume of aggregate) W/C Glenium 7700 (% total mass) #1 0 0.3 5 #8 5 0.3 5 #10 1.5 0.3 5
Logically, higher fibre content reduces the workability and placeability of the concrete. Therefore, mixes with high fibre content require a larger dosage of water reducer to maintain a workable slump. It was important to determine an optimal balance between fibre content and water content, so to maintain a high concrete strength. Concrete cylinders were cast for each mix using standard plastic molds. These cylinders were used to determine both the compressive and the post-failure strength. Post-failure strength was conducted by continuing the compression of the cylinders past its cracking point.
13
It was found that the cylinders without fibres had an explosive and brittle failure, while the cylinders with fibres had an elastic failure with a number of hairline cracks, which is as expected. The cylinders with fibres were able to withstand a much higher post-failure compressive force, indicating a much higher post-failure strength. However, the cylinders without fibres had low postfailure strength, as they exhibited an explosive failure once loaded past its ultimate strength. It was found that increasing the mass percentage of fibre dosage from 1.5% to 5% did not significantly increase the mixtures ultimate strength, nor was there a significant increase in postfailure strength. Therefore, a fibre content of 1.5% was used for the final mix, allowing for a much more workable mix. 4.1.4 Chemical Additives High range water reducing admixture (HWRA) was required to achieve the necessary w/cm ratios while maximizing strength. The admixture is targeted towards mixtures utilizing high cement and SCM quantities. The use of HWRA in these instances works towards dispersing particles, thus reducing the water demand in the cementitious materials. The decrease in water demand also contributes to increasing ultimate strength in the resulting concrete product. Glenium 7700 was used as a HWRA admixture in the final design mix. 4.1.5 Additional Material Testing In addition to batching mixes with the standard SCMs such as fly ash, slag, and silica fume, mixtures using unconventional materials such as saw dust and nanocilicone powder were also tested. Although innovative, the usage of these materials did not exhibit significant increases in strength, or significant gains in lowering density. A summary of all the tested concrete mixtures and their material proportions can be found in Appendix A.2.
4.2
Final Mix Design
Mix #10 was chosen as the final mix since it had the highest ultimate compressive strength using the most SCMs, resulted in a low density, and was cost effective. Figure 4 summarizes the basic proportioning of Mix #10 using a pie chart. The aggregates consist of standard laboratory sand and 10mm crushed gravel. The inclusion of polypropylene synthetic macro-fibres eliminated the need for lateral reinforcement in the concrete, and also contributed towards reducing the carbon
14
footprint of the concrete product. The cement and SCMs make up 16.7% by volume and 20.5% by weight of the total mix. The water-cement ratio was kept to 0.3.
Material Content (Kg/m3)

9 172 344.12
918 768
Cement
Lab Sand
10mm Crushed Gravel
Fibre
Water
Figure 4 - Breakdown of Materials used in the Final Mix
A breakdown of the cement and SCMs content for Mix #10 is shown in Figure 5. The cement contains 10% by weight fly ash, 70% by weight Portland cement, 10% by weight slag and 10% by weight silica fume. Two sets of skis were casted; one set that will be used for the competition, as well as a second set for emergencies in the case the first set is damaged before or during the competition. Six test cylinders were also casted along with the skis. A vibrating table was used to consolidate the concrete in the ski forms as well as the cylinders casted.
15
Cement Content (Kg/m3)

49.16 49.16 49.16 344.12
Type GU Portland Cement
Fly Ash
Slag
Silica Fume
Figure 5 - Breakdown of Cementitious Materials Used in Final Mix
5.0
5.1
Ski Design
Concept
To satisfy the requirement of all running surfaces being concrete, a three-ski system was chosen. The two skis in the front are half the width of the ski in the back. The three skis act as supports for the superstructure. The section of the rear ski is effectively double the size of the two front skis, as a groove runs down the middle of the section. The concrete skis were designed as reinforced concrete beams, and as such were designed to satisfy all safety requirements as specified in CSA A23.3-04. All three skis are curved in the front to prevent snow collection, which may cause the toboggan to flip or become unstable as it moves downhill. The underside of the two front skis are curved so to reduce drag as it moves downhill. The underside of the rear ski is grooved down the middle to provide additional stability and to reduce lateral movement. Figure 6 and 7 presents the designed cross section of the front ski and rear ski respectively. Appendix B.1 shows further specifications for each ski.
16
Figure 6 Front Concrete Ski Cross Section
Figure 7 Rear Concrete Ski Cross Section
5.2
Loading
The skis were designed as reinforced concrete beams, carrying both the dead load of the toboggan and its components, as well as the live load resulting from the five toboggan riders. The loads from the superstructure are assumed to be transferred down to the skis as point loads applied at the location of the anchors. The point load is calculated using the theory of tributary area. Appendix B.2 presents a detailed analysis of the loading calculations. Table 4 presents a summary of the calculated loading for the skis.
17
UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report Table 4 Assumed Point Loading on Skis
Toboggan Component
Load Resisted by Each Front Ski (kN)
Load Resisted by Back Ski (kN) 0.219 0.024 2.26 0.22 2.723
Timber Framing 1/4" Plywood People Mechanical Systems TOTAL
0.1095 0.012 1.13 0.11 1.3615
A line load of 0.144 kN/m was exerted on each of the front skis, and a line load 0.288 kN/m was exerted on the back ski. The loads were multiplied by a factor of 1.4 in the subsequent analysis to compute the maximum factored bending moment along the length of each ski. The factored loading for each ski is summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Assumed Factored Loading on Skis
Toboggan Component Front Ski Back Ski
Factored Point Load 1.904 kN 3.8122 kN
Factored Line Load 0.202 kN/m 0.404 kN/m
The skis were modelled as finite beams on an elastic foundation, where the snow was considered to be elastic and similar in nature to loose sand. Therefore, a subgrade modulus of 100 kip/ft, or 157 kN/m, was assumed for the snow as an elastic foundation. In analyzing the beam under the above load conditions using a spreadsheet program specifically developed for beams on elastic foundations, it was determined that the maximum moment was experienced by the back ski. The maximum factored moment was computed to be 0.149 kNm; therefore each ski has been designed to withstand a bending moment of 0.149 kNm.
18
5.3
Reinforcement Design
Concrete as a material itself is strong in compression, but weak in tension. This weakness is addressed through the addition of reinforcing bars, which is usually made of steel. In the composite reinforced concrete material, the concrete carries the majority of the compressive loads, while the reinforcing bars carry the tensile loads. The placement of the reinforcement depends on whether the maximum tensile bending stresses are located at the top or bottom face of the structure. As an alternative to steel reinforcement, polymer reinforcement such as glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP), are also available. GFRP is made of high tensile strength glass fibres weaved and embedded in a resin matrix, and as such is much lighter than the conventional steel reinforcing bars. GFRP is considered as a strong alternative to steel as the reinforcement material due to the GFRPs higher tensile strength, lighter weight, resistance to corrosion, and electromagnetic neutrality. Therefore, GFRP reinforcement was chosen in favour of steel reinforcement for use in our toboggans concrete skis. The reinforced concrete section was designed as per CSA S806-12, which limits the tensile load capacity of the GFRP reinforcing, and prevents brittle failure under extreme loading. The GFRP reinforcing bars were first donated by Pultrall to the 2012 University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan team. The bars not used by the previous team were maintained in usable condition, allowing for the 2014 University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan team to use the GFRP bars in the Sleighlors sled. The reusing of the GFRP bar both minimized the cost of our toboggan, as well as added to the sustainability aspect of the skis. Figure 5 shows the GFRP bars used in each of the concrete skis. The final design of the front skis cross-section includes one #3 GFRP reinforcing bar with a 6 mm diameter, placed at an effective depth of 35 mm in the concrete, providing the bar with 15 mm of cover. The final design of the rear skis cross section includes two #3 GFRP bars, each placed where the section is the deepest. The effective depth of the GFRP bars in the rear ski is also 35 mm, and 15 mm of concrete cover is provided for the two reinforcing bars in the rear ski.
19
Figure 8 - GFRP Reinforcing Bars Used in Concrete Skis
5.4
Anchor Design
The two front skis each will have two anchor bolts embedded; one of the anchors connects the skis to the steering system, while the other connects the skis to the superstructure and also acts as a limiter for the steerings turning angle. This is further explained in Section 8. A hole will be drilled in a 150 mm x 50 mm x 6.4 mm steel plate, through which one of the bolts will be inserted and welded to the steel plate. The welded bolt and plate will be embedded into the concrete and connected to the toboggan frame. The second bolt connecting the skis to the steering system will be embedded on its own without a steel plate. Figure 9 shows the anchor bolt placement in the front skis.
Figure 9 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Front Skis
20
It should be noted that the bolt and plate configuration placed near the rear of the front skis will be the connections supporting the front half of the toboggan. Therefore, it was expected that the anchor bolts will be subjected to significant loading and flexure. To account for this, a spacer was placed around the anchor bolts to increase the bearing area and decrease the loading being exerted on the 20 mm anchor bolts. A coupling nut was also used to extend the length of the bolt, with the addition of a threaded rod, to allow for clearance above the steering system and for connection into the frame. The rear ski will be connected to the toboggan superstructure using a group of five anchor bolts, all of which will be welded to a 300 mm x 100 mm x 6.4 mm steel plate. The bolt group, complete with the steel plate, will be embedded into the rear ski. Figure 10 shows the anchor bolt placement in the rear ski. Coupling nuts were also used in the rear ski to extend the effective connection into the frame above.
Figure 10 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Rear Ski
All the anchors used were bolts with a diameter of 19 mm, fillet welded around the circumference of the bolt to a 6.4 mm (1/4) thick steel plate. The presence of the steel plate provides additional resistance to concrete and shear pullout. The anchors used are Grade 8 steel (Fu = 1068 MPa, Fy = 827 MPa), but the ultimate strength and yield strength of Grade 2 steel (Fu = 510 MPa, Fy = 393 MPa) were used in the design calculations to be conservative. The design of the anchor bolts were completed as per Appendix D of CSA A23.4-04. The applied anchor forces were determined through the loading analysis described in Section 6. The anchors tensile and shear pullout capacities were then checked against the applied anchor forces. Table 6 summarizes the calculated
21
anchor capacity, and compares it against the applied loading. The full calculations performed to compute the anchors tensile and shear capacity can be found in Appendix B.4.
Table 6 - Summary of Anchor Design
Resistance (kN) TENSION: Steel Resistance of Anchor in Tension Concrete Breakout Resistance of Anchor in Tension Pullout Resistance of Concrete in Tension Concrete Side-Face Blowout Resistance of Anchor in Tension SHEAR: Steel Resistance of Anchor in Shear Concrete Breakout Resistance of Anchor in Shear (Perp. To Edge) Concrete Breakout Resistance of Anchor in Shear (Par. To Edge) Concrete Pryout Resistance of Anchor in Shear 69.21 7.16 39.88 N/A 38.73 2.35 11.64 5.45
Applied Loading (kN)
1.71
2.3
It can be seen in Table 8 that the anchors are able to resist the applied shear and tensile loading. It should also be noted that these calculations are conservative, as the steel plate to which the bolts are welded to were not considered in these calculations.
5.5
Construction
The shape of the skis consisted of complex curves, grooves, and angles. As such, it would be very difficult to precisely construct forms out of conventional plywood. Instead, it was requested of the Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine shop, situated at the University of Waterloo Architecture campus in Cambridge, to create the forms for the concrete skis. The CNC machine is able to interpret a digital 3D model of the desired shape, and use it as a guide to carve the shape out of a slab of high density foam. The result was used as the formwork for the concrete skis. The finished formwork can be seen in Figure 11. Two sets of the forms were created, allowing for the casting of an extra set of skis in case of damage to the first forms. The digital 3D model of the foam formwork can be found in Appendix B.5.
22
Figure 11 - Finished Formwork For Concrete Skis Being Sanded By Team Members
Prior to casting the concrete skis, the inside of the forms were sanded down to minimize any impurities and smooth out pores in the foam left behind by the CNC machine. Doing so eased the removal of the finished product from the formwork, and also improved the aesthetic finish of the concrete skis. The interior of the formwork was then greased with form oil to further allow for the concrete skis to slip out easily once cured. The anchor bolts and steel plates were suspended by bolting the top end of the anchor bolts to a wooden plank suspended over the width of the formwork and supported by the edges of the foam slab. Since the concrete mixture had close to zero slump, the GFRP bars were able to be floated on top of the first lift of the concrete pour. This allowed for the GFRP bars to be placed and suspended at the correct depth. Following the assembling of the formwork and placement of the reinforcement, the concrete was mixed and casted into the forms. To ensure proper consolidation and minimize air voids, the formwork was placed on a vibration table following the placement of the concrete. This is shown in Figure 12.
23
Figure 12 - Casting of Rear Ski And Consolidation Using Vibration Table
Prior to curing, the exposed steel anchor threads were covered in masking tape to prevent corrosion, as well as to prevent concrete from hardening within the threads. At the submission date of this report, the concrete skis had not been demolded yet. The forms will be removed once the concrete strength has been achieved. Following the removal of the forms, the underside of the skis will be grinded and finished to ensure a smooth surface. Additionally, a thin layer of ski wax will be applied to the underside of all the skis.
6.0
6.1
Frame Design
Concept
Unlike previous toboggan frames traditionally constructed of steel or aluminum, the 2014 University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan team decided to design the frame using timber. Wood has a high strength-to-weight ratio, and can be easily recycled and reused, contributing to the sustainability of our toboggan. Additionally, a timber frame can be seen to be more aesthetically
24
pleasing than a cold, metal superstructure. A wireframe sketch of the frame can be seen in Figure 13. A dimensioned plan and profile view of the frame can be found in Appendix C.1.
Figure 13 Wireframe Model of Toboggan and Frame
The University of Waterloos 2014 toboggan utilizes a timber frame and plywood deck supported by three concrete skis. The timber frame is composed of two primary arches. The two arch members act as the roll cage of the toboggan frame, and protect riders in the case of impact and rollovers. The plywood deck is supported by two joist members spanning across the width of the deck. These timber members utilize a spruce 2x4 cross section. A hole will be cut in the plywood deck to allow for the steering system to come up from below the super structure. A 300 mm cantilever was designed for a single rider to stand on at the rear of the toboggan. The edge beams extend continuously to the end of the cantilever, which will be supported by a floor joist located at the mid length of the cantilever. Two triangular wedges are built into this standing area as foot holds for the fifth rider.
25
It has been considered that although the utilization of a timber frame is innovative and unprecedented, there are concerns with regards to the structural performance of the material. Care has been taken to ensure that all sections are adequate for the load cases described in Section 6.2.
6.2
Design
The toboggan frame was modelled and analyzed as a static structure, subject to different load cases which may occur during the competition. The load cases include braking, and impact loading, the latter of which can be divided into a side collision subcase and a rollover impact subcase. The frame members were designed and sized to withstand the forces incurred in these load cases. 6.2.1 Braking Load Case When the toboggans braking system is engaged, the framing will be put under the force calculated below. The toboggan, assumed at the maximum speed of 80 km/h, will stop in approximately 30 meters (based on previous competitions). The loads calculated were used in the analysis model that will be described in Section 6.2.3. The loads were developed using Newtons Second Law, and the detailed calculations can be found in Appendix C.2. As a result of braking, a total of 5 kN is applied to the toboggan, resulting in 2.5 kN of shear force being applied to the two main anchors at each of the front skis. 6.2.2 Impact Loading In the first load case considered in the frame design, the toboggan is assumed to have fallen over on its side during a turn, creating a side collision. Assuming that the snow does not provide any dampening of the fall, the load can be considered to be caused by the weight of the toboggan and the riders. A simple application of Newtons Second Law again, this time considering gravity as the acceleration of the toboggan and using the total mass of the toboggan and its riders as the accelerating mass, produces the loading that can be applied to the frame. Therefore, an unfactored load of 5.8 kN was computed. It was considered during analysis that if the sled were to turn over as a result of it tripping on an irregularity in the snow, an amplification to the collision force would occur as it would likely turn over much quicker and hit the snow with a greater force. Because of this, it was assumed that a conservative estimate would be double the force calculated above, or 11.6 kN. Since the toboggan will be colliding on its side, the force was distributed linearly across
26
the edge beam of the frame, producing a uniformly distributed load of 5.50 kN/m. Appendix C.2 shows the detailed calculations involved in the development of these loads. The second case assumes that the toboggan and its riders have toppled nearly upside down. Therefore, Newtonian physics define that the force imposed on top of the roll cage will simply be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the weight of the toboggan and its riders toppling over. An unfactored load of 5.80 kN was calculated for this load case, and applied to the digital 3D model described in section 6.2.3. 6.2.3 Frame Analysis A 3D analytical model of the toboggan frame was created using the structural analysis software SAP2000. The model considers the anchor bolts as pinned supports at the two front corners of the frame, and at the midspan of the rear most joist. The member cross sections, geometry, and material properties were defined in the program. The load cases presented in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 were also defined and applied to the appropriate members. A screenshot of the analytical model and the member numbering is shown in Figure 14. The load cases defined can be found in Appendix C.3.
Figure 14 SAP2000 Analytical Model and Member Numbering 27
The full results from the SAP2000 analysis can be found in Appendix C.3. Table 7 below summarize the maximum forces that each member will need to withstand. Table 7 Maximum Member Forces Exhibited by SAP2000 Model Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Axial [kN]
3 3 3.54 3.54 2.3 6.3 6.3 2.3
Shear [kN]
1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.95
Bending [kN-m]
0.8 0.8 1.19 1.19 0.87 0.67 0.67 0
Based on the results of the analysis, the framing members will use SPF 2x4 sections for the edge beams and joists, and ash wood for the arches that make up for the roll cage. The moment resistance for a SPF 2x4 (38mm x 89mm) section is given as 1.27 kNm, and the shear resistance for the same section is given as 5.17 kN. These values were taken from the Wood Design Manual by the Canadian Wood Council.
6.3
Construction
The timber members were cut to size and assembled by members of the UW Concrete Toboggan Team. The arches were constructed using strips of ash curved individually, and then glued and laminated together to form a 2x4 arch section. To construct the intersection of the arches at the top of the frame, a notch was built into one of the arch members where the other is able to slot in. Following this, the joint was finished using a bolt and steel plate. The arches are connected into the deck frame using brackets screwed into the four faces perpendicular to the deck. The joists under the deck were connected into the edge beams using joist hangars. Following this, a thick plywood sheet was screwed into the edge beams and joists. An opening was made in the plywood deck to accommodate for the steering column.
28
Figure 15 - Members of the Concrete Toboggan Team Preparing the Framing
Additionally, the overhead arch members were wrapped with insulation foam, sealed with duct tape. The sides of the frame were covered with a light mesh to provide additional protection to the riders in the case of a rollover or side collision.
7.0
Braking Design
The braking system was considered as one of the priorities in the toboggan design, as it is of paramount importance that the toboggan and its riders will be able to stop safely at the end of the run. An initial velocity of 60 km/h at the start of braking and a total mass of 536 kg was assumed for the toboggan and its riders.
7.1
Concept and Design
The design of the braking system was initially conceived to be steel plate powered by a hydraulic cylinder. However, due to weight constraints, it was decided that this would not be possible, and
29
the initial design was adjusted to instead have the braking system powered by the fifth rider, standing at the rear end of the toboggan. The design involves the fifth rider pushing down on a cross bar, which is connected to a lever system that controls the rotation of the steel plate built under the deck. The cross bar also acts as a hand rail for which the fifth rider to hold on to during the run downhill. In pushing down on the cross bar, the lever member than rotates the steel plate downwards into the snow, which an increasing drag force against the toboggan as snow accumulates against the steel plate. A ratchet and lock system keeps a constant force against the top end of the lever, subsequently keeping the steel plate down into the snow. The layout of the braking system relative to the rest of the toboggan is shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 - Braking Assembly
To avoid creating an overturning moment about the front end of the toboggan during braking, the braking system was placed behind the rear ski. As such, the majority of the toboggan weight will be kept in front of the brake, and it will be unlikely for the toboggan to roll over about the front end of the toboggan during braking. The lower cross bar of the lever system will be pinned on both ends to the edge beams of the toboggan, such that the lever system will rotate about this pivot point. The braking system will be tested prior to the competition day. If the main system is found to be insufficient, additional hand brakes will be added to the two sides of the toboggan. These hand
30
brakes will be operated by the second or third rider, and will function as a lever system similar to the main system in the rear, but in a smaller scale. The estimated force on the braking blade when stopping is 18.6kN. This calculation is shown in Appendix D.1. The braking components were designed to resist this force.
Figure 17 - Braking Blade Bolted to Main Braking System
7.2
Fabrication
The five aluminum HSS members were cut to size and given to the University Machine Shop to be welded (GMAW). Fillet welds were provided at every edge to ensure maximum strength The system consists of five members constructed out of 45x45mm HSS aluminum tubing. These members are pivoted using cold rolled steel rod. The rod is held in place using lynch pins. The blade is made from 7mm sheet steel and is bolted to the lower cross-members using 5/8 steel bolts. The steel plate was cut to size and bolted on the lower cross bar of the braking lever system.
7.3
Strength Analysis
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed on all parts in order to test for failure, using SolidWorks 2013 SimulationXpress. Graphical stress for the metal plate is shown in Figure 18. The figure shows that the stress on the blade is 37 MPa. The yield stress for the steel plating (A36) is about 220 MPa, while the yield stress for the aluminum tubing (6061 - T4) is about 227
31
MPa. This results in a factor of safety of 6.0. Similar results were found for the lever arm and the crossbar. Appendix D.2 includes the input for the FEA analysis.
Figure 18 - VonMises stress for Steel Plate.
8.0
Steering Design
Snow conditions will be both unpredictable and imperfect on the day of the competition. It is more likely than not that the toboggan will not be able to travel downhill in a perfectly straight line. Additionally, the toboggan is required in the competition to go through a slalom course. To preserve downhill speed in turning and correcting the toboggans course, the steering system was designed to be provide active rotational steering.
8.1
Steering System Concept
The required steering system on the concrete toboggan will be tested on its ability to adjust the direction of the sled and maintain a straight path. This system was designed to optimize cost and weight while being innovative and safe for all members on board. The steering system consists of 3 aluminum flat bars that make up a pin-connected mechanism below the deck; hollow circular column that acts as the steering column; and an aluminum handle bar that controls the steering system below the deck. The system steers by rotation of the
32
two front ski slabs by a mechanism similar to that of a bicycle handle bar. This steering allows for turning of the sled while attempting to maintain maximum speed. The trusses that make up the majority of the steering system is connected directly into the skis as described in Section 5.4; the steering column that controls the truss system is connected using a lynch pin. An opening was created in the plywood deck to allow for the steering column to come up from below the deck. The steering system is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19 - Steering System Concept
The T-shaped handle bar at the front of the sled will be turned by the driver in a similar manner to that of a bicycle handle bar. The steering column was designed to withstand the torque applied by the driver in order to overcome resistance between the snow and the concrete slab. When the steering beam rotates, one truss will push while the other pulls on the front ends of their respective slabs rotating them about their respective central pivot points. The skis are free to pivot about the rear anchor bolt connection into the frame. The bar responsible for this will carry the weight of the sled and the riders and must be analyzed to avoid failure of both the bar and the slab.
33
8.2
Fabrication
All members were cut by members of the 2014 Concrete Toboggan Team. Welds were completed by the University Machine Shop. The truss elements were constructed using thick aluminum flat bar to minimize weight, and were pinned from the turning beam to the slabs by diameter bolts. As described in Section 5.4, Grade 8 steel anchor bolts were used for the connection between the skis and the steering system. Nylon spacers were used between the slab and the truss elements. The material is lightweight and also somewhat self-lubricating. A cold weather test was conducted on a tubular sample of nylon to see how it would behave at low temperatures. The sample was stored in a freezer for several days and then removed and immediately stuck hard with a standard household hammer. There was minor flexing of the sample but no failure or cracking was evident. The bolts connecting to the front concrete slabs are to be locked in place within the concrete, to prevent any rotation that might fracture the concrete. A washer or small plate was placed on the bolt and welded to it. This, along with a short length of the bolt was casted into the concrete slab upon pouring. The aluminum steering column will be welded to a flange that will be bolted to the beam member that turns under the sled deck. The steering column and handle bars will be wrapped in insulation foam and duct tape to prevent injury to the rider and operator. To prevent oversteering and a subsequent rollover, the anchor bolts casted near the rear of the front skis are positioned such that the rotation of the steering links are limited. For example, in turning the skis to the left, the steering link connected to the left ski will be rotated in the counterclockwise direction. However, the rear anchor bolt in the left ski prevents the left steering link from rotating past a certain angle. This is shown in Figure 20.
34
Figure 20 - Steering System Turning Limits
9.0
Conclusion
The analysis, design, and construction procedures involved in bringing the Sleighlors toboggan to life has been detailed in this report. The main objective of this years edition of the toboggan was to implement an innovative frame, while also keeping costs low and effectively using sustainable materials. With the Sleighlors toboggan, the 2014 University of Waterloo Concrete Toboggan Team hopes to build on the success of previous competitors. Our team looks forward to competing in the 2014 Great Northern Concrete Toboggan team, and to showcasing the hard work, technical acumen, and school spirit embodied in our toboggan.
35
References
Concrete design handbook (3rd ed.). (2006). Ottawa: Cement Association of Canada. Handbook of steel construction (10th ed.). (2010). Willowdale, Ont.: Canadian Institute of Steel Construction. Design and construction of building structures with fibre-reinforced polymers. (2012). Mississauga, ON: Canadian Standards Association. Wood design manual, 2010: the complete reference for wood design in Canada.([6th ed.). (2010). Ottawa: Canadian Wood Council.
36
Appendix A Concrete Mix
37
A.1 Concrete Testing Summary Sheet
38
A23 Concrete Mix Portions Mix #1 (Control)

Batch: 0.01m3 SUMMARY Mix Component Water Air Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash Slag Carbon HRWR Glass Spheres Fibres F.A. C.A. TOTAL Mass 2.16 kg 0.00 kg 4.92 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0.02 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 9.41 kg 7.89 kg 24.39 kg % Total Mass 8.8 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 38.6 32.3 100.0 Volume 0.0019 m3 0.0003 m 0.0016 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0035 m 0.0029 m
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.8 28.6 100.0
0.0000 m3
3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
Density of Concrete = 2420.01 kg/m
W/B Ratio = 0.44
Mix #2 (SCC Control)

SUMMARY Mix Component Water Air Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash Slag Carbon HRWR Glass Spheres Fibres F.A. C.A. TOTAL Mass 2.06 0.00 4.42 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 9.31 7.81 24.11 kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg % Total Mass 8.5 0.0 18.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 38.6 32.4 100.0 Volume 0.0019 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0028 0.0101 m m m m m m m m m m
3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 13.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.5 28.3 100.0 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
m3
3 3 3
W/B Ratio = 0.42
39
Mix #3 (Mix #1 + 10% Fly Ash Substitution)

SUMMARY Mix Component Water Air Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash Slag Carbon HRWR Glass Spheres Fibres F.A. C.A. TOTAL Mass 2.14 0.00 4.18 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 9.32 7.81 24.21 kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg % Total Mass 8.8 0.0 17.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 38.5 32.3 100.0 Volume 0.0019 0.0003 0.0013 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0029 0.0101 m m m m m m
3 3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 13.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.5 28.3 100.0
m3 m3 m m m m
3 3 3 3 3
W/B Ratio = 0.44
Mix #4 (Mix #1 + 10% Slag Substitution)

SUMMARY Mix Component Water Air Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash Slag Carbon HRWR Glass Spheres Fibres F.A. C.A. TOTAL Mass 2.00 kg 0.00 kg 3.93 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0.98 kg 0.00 kg 0.02 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 9.37 kg 7.86 kg 24.17 kg % Total Mass 8.3 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 38.8 32.5 100.0 Volume 0.0019 m 0.0012 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0003 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0035 m 0.0029 m
3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 12.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.7 28.4 100.0
0.0003 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0000 m3
3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.41
40
Mix #5 (#2 + 10% Fly Ash Substitution)

SUMMARY Mix Component Water Air Cement Silica Fume Fly Ash Slag Carbon HRWR Glass Spheres Fibres F.A. C.A. TOTAL Mass 2.07 kg 0.00 kg 3.69 kg 0.49 kg 0.74 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0.02 kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 9.22 kg 7.73 kg 23.97 kg % Total Mass 8.7 0.0 15.4 2.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 38.5 32.3 100.0 Volume 0.0019 m 0.0003 m 0.0012 m 0.0002 m 0.0003 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0000 m 0.0034 m 0.0028 m
3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 11.6 2.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.1 28.0 100.0
0.0000 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.42
Mix # 7
3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 8.5 2.2 2.9 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.0 27.9 100.0
0.0003 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.52
41
Mix #8 (Mix # 7 + Fibres)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.3 2.5 8.5 2.2 2.9 3.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 32.3 26.5 100.0
0.0003 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.54
Mix # 9 (10$ SCMs)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 10.8 2.2 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.2 28.0 100.0
0.0002 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.48
42
Mix #10 (Mix #9 + Fibres)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 10.8 2.2 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 33.7 27.6 100.0
0.0010 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0605 m
W/B Ratio = 0.39
Mix #11 (Control + Sawdust)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.3 2.5 12.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 8.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 30.5 25.0 100.0
0.0001 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.52
43
Mix #12 (Glass Spheres)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.6 2.5 13.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 32.9 27.0 100.0
0.0001 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0100 m
W/B Ratio = 0.54
Mix #13 (1% Nanosilicone as Fine Aggregate)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 13.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.4 28.3 100.0
0.0001 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.38
44
Mix #14 (2% Nanosilicone)

3 3 3 3 3
% Total Volume 18.4 2.5 13.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 34.4 28.3 100.0
0.0001 m3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0.0101 m
W/B Ratio = 0.38
45
A.3 Material Data Sheets
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Appendix B Concrete Skis
71
B.1 Ski Dimension Detail
72
73
B.2 Loading on Concrete Skis

Concrete Skis:
= = 0.050 = = 0.120 = = 0.600 = = 0.050 = = 0.240 = = 0.633 = = 2400 /3 = = 24 /3 = [(50 600 120 ) 2 + (240 633 50 )] 2400 = 35.51 kg = 78.3 lb Concrete Skis: 24 = = (0.050)(0.120) ( 3 ) = 0.144 / 24 = = (0.050)(0.240) ( 3 ) = 0.288 / Timber Framing: = = (44.6 ) (9.81 Plywood Decking: A mass of 11 lb, or 5.06 kg, was calculated for the timber frame. The loading from the framing can then be calculated to be equal to 0.048 kN. = = 460
74
) = 0.438

3 = = 0.011
= = 9.81 /
3 = = (0.011 ) (
460 9.81 1 )( )( ) = 0.048 3 1000

Load Transferred per Anchor Bolt (kN)
Distribution Ratio Front Ski 1 Front Ski 2 Back Ski 0.25 0.25 0.5
Total Load Taken by Ski (kN)
0.0120 0.0120 0.0241
0.0060 0.0060 0.0120
People: A surface load of 2.4 kilopascals was assumed to represent the weight of the riders. A tributary area of 0.945 m2 was calculated for the back ski, while a tributary area of 0.473 m2 was calculated for each of the front skis. The surface load is distributed to each of the skis using their associated tributary areas. = ( ) ( )
Tributary Area (m3) Front Ski 1 Front Ski 2 Back Ski 0.473 0.473 0.945 1.13 1.13 2.26 0.65 0.65 1.13 Total Load Taken by Ski (kN) Load Transferred per Anchor Bolt (kN)
Braking System:
75
A mass of 100 lb, or 44.6 kg, was assumed for the total weight of both the steering and braking system. The loading from the framing can then be calculated to be equal to 0.438 kN.
= = 44.6 = = 9.81 / = = (44.6 ) (9.81 ) = 0.438
It is assumed that the weight will be split evenly between the two mechanical systems, and subsequently that the front skis will take the full weight of the steering system and the back ski will take the full weight of the braking system. Therefore, the assumption follows that the back ski will bear 0.22 kN of the total load, while the front skis will each bear 11 kN of the total weight.
Distribution Ratio Front Ski 1 Front Ski 2 Back Ski 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.1094 0.1094 0.2188 0.0547 0.0547 0.1094 Total Load Taken by Ski (kN) Load Transferred per Anchor Bolt (kN)
CALCULATION OF FACTORED BENDING MOMENT: A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet acquired online from Engineers Edge (2013) was used to calculate the maximum factored bending moment for both the front and back ski. The program models the ski as a finite beam on an elastic foundation, where snow is assumed to be an elastic foundation.
Imperial units are used for the program inputs; therefore the values determined previously were converted from metric to imperial units for the use of this program. The geometric and material
76
properties of the skis, as described previously, are taken as inputs into the program. Similarly, a subgrade modulus for the elastic foundation is also taken as an input into the program. Snow was assumed to have a similar subgrade modulus to loose sand, and therefore a subgrade modulus of 100 kip/ft3, or 157 kN/m3, was assumed for the snow. Lastly, the program allows for the definition of point loads at different points along the length of the beam, and line loads applied across the total length of the beam. The loads calculated previously were inputted into the program. A screenshot of the program inputs for the front skis are shown as an example in the figure below, followed by the outputs produced for both the front skis and the back skis.
The maximum moment is experienced by the back skis and was calculated by the spreadsheet to be 0.11 kip-ft, which was converted into the metric equivalent of 0.149 kN-m. Therefore, all 3 skis (front and back) were designed to resist this moment.
= .
77
Shear and Moment Diagram for Each Front Ski
78
UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report Shear and Moment Diagram for Back Ski
79
B.3 GFRP Reinforcement Design
80
Glass Fibre Reinforced Fiber (GFRP) Properties: = = 9.53 = = 71.3 2 = = 896 = = = 46 = = 0.0167 = Concrete Ski Properties: = = 50 = = 120 = = 45 1 = 0.85 0.0015 = 0.85 0.0015(45) = 0.78 1 = 0.97 0.0025 = 0.97 0.0025(45) = 0.86 = = 0.75 = = 0.60 = = 0.0035 = = 35 =
Balance of Forces (Assume Concrete Crushes Before GFRP Ruptures): = 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 = ( 1) Create Quadratic Equation in terms of Neutral Axis Depth, c: (1 1 ) 2 + ( ) = 0
81
Try 1 #2 U-Rod GFRP Bars: = 31.67 Substitute all Known Values into Quadratic Equation: (0.78)(0.60)(45)(0.86)(120) 2 + (0.75)(31.672 )(46000)(0.0035) (0.75)(31.67)(46000)(32)(0.0035) = 0 2,173.39 2 + 4186.4 122,372.88 = 0
Solving the quadratic: = .
Check Assumption That Concrete Ruptures First: = ( 1) 35 = ( 1) (0.0035) 9.47 = 0.0151 < = 0.0167 ,
Calculate Factored Moment Resistance of Concrete Ski:
= 1 1 (
1 ) 2 (6.6)(0.86) ) 2
= (0.78)(0.60)(45)(0.86)(120)(6.6) (35 = .
82
UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report Notes: The above analysis assumed a compression failure of the concrete skis (concrete will crush before rupture of the GFRP bars). This mode of failure is more desirable than tension failure (GFRP bars rupture before concrete crushing), as it is less sudden than tension failure. The above analysis assumed a rectangular section of 60 mm x 130 mm for simplicity. In reality, the bottom of these skis will have grooves, thus reducing the concrete available. However, it was determined that the depth of the compression zone in the concrete was limited to c = 13.48 mm. As this depth is within the rectangular portion of the ski, this analysis remains accurate.
83
B.4 Anchor Bolt Calculations 1) STEEL RESISTANCE OF ANCHOR IN TENSION (CSA S16-09): = 0.75 = = 0.8 = = 2.0 = = 1/2" = 12 2 (12)2 = = = = 1132 4 4 = = 510 ( 2 ) = (0.75)(0.8)(1.0)(49.52 )(510) = .
2) CONCRETE BREAKOUT RESISTANCE ANCHOR IN TENSION (CSA A23.4-04 D.6.2): = , , , 1 2 , , , = = = = = = = () = 200 = () = 60 = = 30 = = 10 ( ) = = 0.65 = 45 = 1.0 ( )(. 5.4) = 9 2 = (9)(30)2 = 8100 2 1.5 = (1.5)(30) = 45 < 1 & < 2
84
= (1.5 + 1.5 )(1.5 + 1.5 ) = (2)(45 )(2)(45 ) = 8100 2 = 1.5 = (10)(0.65)45(30)1.5 (1.0) = 7.16 = min(1 , 2 ) = 60 1.5 , = 1.0 () , = 1.0 , , = 1.0 = 8100 2 (1.0)(1.0)(1.0)(5.45 ) = . 8100 2
3) PULLOUT RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE IN TENSION (CSA A23.4-04 D.6.3): = , , = = = = 19 (192 122 ) = = = 170.43 2 4 = 1.0 ( )(. 5.4) () , = 1.0 = 8 = 8(170.432 )(0.65)(45)(1.0) = 39.88 = (1.0)(39.88) = .
4) CONCRETE SIDE-FACE BLOWOUT RESISTANCE OF ANCHOR IN TENSION (CSA A23.4-04 D.6.4): = min(1 , 2 ) = min(60, 200) = 60 > 0.4 = (0.4)(25) = 10
. 6.4
85
5) STEEL RESISTANCE OF ANCHOR IN SHEAR (CSA S16-09): : = 0.42 = = 0.8 = = 1.0 = = 2.0 = = 1132 = = 510
2 = (0.42)(0.8)(2.0)(2.0)(113 )(510) = .
6) CONCRETE BREAKOUT RESISTANCE OF ANCHOR IN SHEAR (CSA A23.4-04 D.7.2): = , ,
= = , = , = = = = 25 = = = 25 = = 12 = = 0.65 = 45 = 1.0 ( )(. 5.4)
CASE 1: SHEAR PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE 1 = () = 200 2 = () = 60
86
2 = 60 < 1.51 = (1.5)(200) = 300 = 50 < 1.51 = (1.5)(200) = 300 , . 7.2.4 , 1 : 2 60 2 = 60 > = 50 1 = = = 40 1.5 1.5 = 4.51 2 = (4.5)(40)2 = 7200 2 2 = 60 > 1.51 = (1.5)(40) = 60 = 50 < 1.51 = (1.5)(40) = 60 = (1.51 + 1.51 )() = (60 + 60)(50) = 6000 2 2 = 60 1.51 = (1.5)(37.5) = 56.255 , = 1.0 , , = 1.0 0.2 = 0.58 ( ) 1 1.5 30 0.2 = (0.58) ( ) 12(0.65)45(40)1.5 (1.0) = 2.6 12 60002 (1.0)(1.0)(2.6) = . = 72002
CASE 2: SHEAR PARALLEL TO EDGE 1 = () = 60 2 = () = 200 2 = 200 > 1.51 = (1.5)(60) = 90 = 60 < 1.51 = (1.5)(60) = 90 , . 7.2.4 = 4.51 2 = (4.5)(60)2 = 16200 2 2 = 200 > 1.51 = (1.5)(60) = 90 = 60 < 1.51 = (1.5)(60) = 90 = (1.51 + 1.51 )() = (90 + 90)(50) = 9000 2 2 = 200 1.51 = 90 , = 1.0 , , = 1.0
87
0.2 = 0.58 ( ) 11.5 25 0.2 = (0.58) ( ) 12(0.65)45(60)1.5 (1.0) = 4.72 12 117002 (1.0)(1.0)(4.72)] = . = 2[ 19012.52
: 2 2 . 7.2.1()
7) CONCRETE PRYOUT RESISTANCE OF AN ANCHOR IN SHEAR (CSA A23.4-04 D.7.3): = = = ( ) = 25 < 60 = 1.0 = 5.45 = (1.0)(13.76) = .
SUMMARY: = 69.21 = 7.16 = 39.88 = 38.73 (. ) = 2.35 (. ) = 11.64 = 5.45
= .
= .
88
INTERACTION OF TENSILE AND SHEAR FORCES (CSA A23.4-04 D.8): D.8.2 (0.2) = (0.2)(2.14) = 0.428 < = 1.38 D.8.3 (0.2) = (0.2)(2.14) = 1.09 < = 3.0 D.8.4 > 0.2 > 0.2 : + 1.2
Parallel to Concrete Edge

1.71 2.3 + = 1.2 1.2 7.16 2.35
Perpendicular to Concrete Edge

1.71 3.54 + = 0.55 1.2 7.16 11.64
89
B.5 3D Models of Forms
90
91
Appendix C Framing
92
C.1 Framing Drawings
93
C.2 Impact Load Calculation Braking Force: = 80 = 22.22/
Assume 30m to completely stop: = 30 = 136 + 90.8(5) = 590 (Includes people and sled)
2 2 0 22.222 = = = 8.23 / 2 2 2(30)
= = 590 8.23/ 2 = 4.9
Case # 1: Side Collision: = = 590 9.8 = 5.8 2
= 2 5.8 2.1 = 5.50 / Case # 2: Rollover Impact: = 9.8/ 2 = = 590 9.8/ 2 = 5.8
94
C.3 SAP Model Analysis
95
96
ANALYSIS RESULTS
97
Appendix D Braking
98
D.1 Braking Calculations
99
D.2 Finite Element Analysis Input Data

Material: 6061-T6 Yield Strength: 2.75 x 10^5 MPa Braking Force: 18.6kN Computer Program: SolidWorks 2013 Maximum Displacement: 1.52mm Maximum Stress: 80MPa Maximum Strain: 8.57E-4 Deformation Scale: 1 Mesh Type: Solid Mesh Jacobs Points: 4 Points Element Size: 20.81075097mm Tolerance1.04053755mm Mesh Quality: High Total Nodes: 17472 Total Elements: 8589 Maximum Aspect Ratio: 15.715
100

2014 Report Final Submission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Report Final Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concrete Toboggan Team University of Waterloo 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 Attention: Concrete Toboggan

Terry Cheung Design Captain

Matthew Fairbridge Logistics Captain

Brendan Simon Finance and Sponsorship Captain

Great Northern Concrete Toboggan Race 2014

Prepared for: GNCTR 2014 Organizing Committee

Prepared by: Sleighlors Concrete Toboggan Team University of Waterloo

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Team and Spirit

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Fundraising and Expenses

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Figure 1 - Breakdown of Financial Income

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

% of Total 19.8% 0.6% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2% 6.4%

Spirit Costumes Team T-Shirts Swag, Items, Etc. Other

3,050 1,500 250 800 500

19.5% 9.6% 1.6% 5.1% 3.2%

7,989 750 3,325 475 2,689 750

51.1% 4.8% 21.3% 3.0% 17.2% 4.8%

Figure 2 - Breakdown of Expenses

Figure 3 - Macroscale strength estimates [Shapiro et al, 1997]

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Material Selection and Testing

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Price ($/tonne) 175 175 200 100 160 600

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Final Mix Design

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Material Content (Kg/m3)

10mm Crushed Gravel

Figure 4 - Breakdown of Materials used in the Final Mix

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Cement Content (Kg/m3)

Type GU Portland Cement

Figure 5 - Breakdown of Cementitious Materials Used in Final Mix

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Figure 6 Front Concrete Ski Cross Section

Figure 7 Rear Concrete Ski Cross Section

Load Resisted by Each Front Ski (kN)

Timber Framing 1/4" Plywood People Mechanical Systems TOTAL

0.1095 0.012 1.13 0.11 1.3615

Toboggan Component Front Ski Back Ski

Factored Point Load 1.904 kN 3.8122 kN

Factored Line Load 0.202 kN/m 0.404 kN/m

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Figure 8 - GFRP Reinforcing Bars Used in Concrete Skis

Figure 9 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Front Skis

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Figure 10 - Anchor Bolt Layout In Rear Ski

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Applied Loading (kN)

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report

Figure 12 - Casting of Rear Ski And Consolidation Using Vibration Table

UW Concrete Toboggan Team 2014 Technical Report