2017 rfi summary - march - asce · abbreviated names & section 1 – general rules and...

Abbreviated Names

2017 ASCE NCCC of 47

Request for Information (RFI) Summary

March 2017

Note – some RFIs could cover a couple of different sections (ie: RFIs about MTDS’s could fall under either “Concrete” or “Project Overview and Technical Addendum”), and these types of RFIs will only appear in one section, so be sure to check multiple sections if there is a topic that might be covered in multiple sections. Some RFIs include attached documents, which are not included in this summary. For these documents, see the ASCE Concrete Canoe Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/ASCENCCC/).

Approved Abbreviated Names ........................................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 1 – General Rules and Eligibility Requirements ......................................................................... 3

SECTION 2 – Canoe .............................................................................................................................................. 7

SECTION 3 – Concrete ....................................................................................................................................... 10

SECTION 4 – Reinforcement ............................................................................................................................ 28

SECTION 5 – Finishing ....................................................................................................................................... 31

SECTION 6 – Design Paper ............................................................................................................................... 35

SECTION 7 – Engineers Notebook .................................................................................................................. 42

SECTION 8 – Oral Presentation ....................................................................................................................... 44

SECTION 9 – Final Product (Canoe and Cutaway Section) ...................................................................... 45

SECTION 10 – Product Display ........................................................................................................................ 46

SECTION 11 – Race Rules and Regulations ................................................................................................. 47

***CLARIFICATION*** RFI No. 111 Subject: Section 7.1.2.d, Section 10.1.a, “How To” Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Section 7.1.2.d details the “How To” portion of the POTA: a notebook containing 40 photographs of all stages of canoe construction that will be presented on the display table. Section 10.1.a also mentions the display of a 40‐photograph “How To” on the table in almost identical language. Please confirm that these “How To” documents are one and the same, and that the POTA may be presented on the display table to meet the requirements of 10.1.a.

RESPONSE: The language in Section 10.1 was not revised correctly. The "How To" which is part of the POTA contains up to 40 photographs within it and is to be provided with the display. The display board itself does not need 40 additional photographs. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.

Abbreviated Names


Approved Abbreviated Names

Per Section 5.2 LETTERING, If the complete name of the college or university is 31 characters or more (including all

letters and spaces between words), the name may be abbreviated. To use an abbreviation, teams must submit an RFI

for approval by the CNCCC. Teams granted approval for abbreviated names for the 2016 competition do not need to

resubmit an RFI.

The following have been approved by the CNCCC for the 2017 competition (commas and hyphens can be used as needed):

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo – "Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo" California State Polytechnic University at Pomona – "Cal Poly Pomona" California State University, Chico ‐ "CSU, Chico" California State University, Fullerton ‐ "Cal State Fullerton" California State University, Long Beach – "Cal State, Long Beach" California State University, Los Angeles – "Cal State, Los Angeles" California State University, Northridge – “Cal State University Northridge" or "Cal State Northridge" California State University, Sacramento – "Sacramento State" École de Technologie Supérieure, Montréal – "ETS Montréal" Embry‐Riddle Aeronautical University – "Embry‐Riddle" Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ‐ Florida State University ‐ "Florida A&M Univ ‐ Florida St Univ." or "Florida A&M ‐ Florida State" Florida Institute of Technology – "Florida Tech" Georgia institute of Technology – "Georgia Tech" Indiana University ‐ Purdue University Fort Wayne – "Indiana‐Purdue, Fort Wayne" Lawrence Technological University ‐ "Lawrence Tech University" Metropolitan State University of Denver – "MSU Denver" Michigan Technological University – "Michigan Tech" Milwaukee School of Engineering – "MSOE" Minnesota State University Mankato – “MNSU‐Mankato” Missouri University of Science and Technology – "Missouri S & T" New Jersey Institute of Technology – "New Jersey Inst. of Technology" New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology ‐ "New Mexico Tech" New York University Tandon School of Engineering – “New York University Tandon” North Carolina State University – "NC State" Pennsylvania State University – Harrisburg ‐ "Penn State Harrisburg” Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico – "Polytechnic of Puerto Rico" South Dakota School of Mines and Technology – "South Dakota Mines" Southern Illinois University, Carbondale – "SIU Carbondale" Southern Illinois University Edwardsville ‐ "SIU Edwardsville” State University of New York at Buffalo ‐ "SUNY at Buffalo" Tennessee Technological University – "Tennessee Tech" The City College of the City University of New York ‐ "CCNY" The George Washington University ‐ "George Washington University" The Pennsylvania State University, University Park – "Penn State" The University of Alabama in Huntsville ‐ "UAHuntsville" The University Of Pittsburgh at Johnstown – "Pitt Johnstown" The University of Rhode Island ‐ "University of Rhode Island" The University of Texas at Arlington – "UT Arlington" The University of Texas at Austin – "UT Austin" The University of Texas at Tyler – "UT Tyler" Universidad Autonoma Del Estado De Mexico ‐ "Univ. Aut. del Estado de México"

Abbreviated Names & Section 1 – General Rules and Eligibility Requirements


Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México ‐ "Univ Nacional Autónoma D México" University of California, Los Angeles – "UC, Los Angeles" University of California, San Diego – "UC San Diego" University of California, Irvine – "UC Irvine" University of Illinois at Chicago ‐ "Univ. of Illinois at Chicago" University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign ‐ "U of I Urbana‐Champaign" University of Massachusetts Lowell ‐ "Umass Lowell" University of Minnesota Twin Cities ‐ "U of M Twin Cities" University of North Carolina at Charlotte ‐ "UNC Charlotte" University of Texas Rio Grande Valley ‐ "UT Rio Grande Valley" University of Wisconsin ‐ Madison – "UW ‐ Madison" University of Wisconsin ‐ Milwaukee – "UW ‐ Milwaukee" University of Wisconsin‐Platteville – "Univ. of Wisc.‐Platteville" or "UW‐Platteville" United States Air Force Academy – “U.S. Air Force Academy” United States Military Academy ‐ "USMA" Vellore Institute of Technology ‐ "VIT University" Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University – "Virginia Tech" Wentworth Institute of Technology ‐ "Wentworth"

SECTION 1 – General Rules and Eligibility Requirements RFI No. 7 Subject: Section 1.2 Regarding Team Captains Posted 09.19.16

QUESTION: Section 1.2, Registered Participants, states that "Each team shall designate two (2) registered participants as team captains." Is it correct to assume that teams are not allowed to have only one team captain?

RESPONSE: That is correct. Each team must have two team captains at the conference and/or national competitions (these are the individuals that attend the captain’s meetings, can file appeals on behalf of the team, etc.).

RFI No. 13 Subject: Budget Posted 09.22.16

QUESTION: Is there a limit for the budget for the competition or is it simply a matter of determining a budget before the start of construction and adhering to it?

RESPONSE: There are no budgetary limits for the competition.

RFI No. 19 Subject: Section 1.5, Sponsorship Posted 09.28.16

QUESTION: Section 1.5 clearly states the use of sponsorship is to be solely allowed for informational purposes. However, if an image which clearly represents a company (i.e.: a video game character or a cartoon character) was to be used as a sponsorship, would it be allowed? Specifically, if a company only allowed the use of this image with a sponsorship, would it be illegal to show this image in the display, oral presentation, and/or technical report?

RESPONSE: Section 1.5 states “The use of trade and company names for services, products, and intellectual property shall be permitted in the design report, oral presentation and product display for informational purposes only.” For

Section 1 – General Rules and Eligibility Requirements


example, using the trade names of aggregates (e.g., Solite, Norlite, Poraver, etc. withthe appropriate trademark symbol, if appropriate), admixtures (e.g., Sika® ViscoCrete®1000), etc. would be allowed. Intellectual property can consist of a variety of items, such as computer programs used for structural analysis or naval architecture design.

The use of certain images would also fall under the category of “intellectual property” and Section 1.6, ETHICS AND THE COMPETITION, under subpart 2. Taking other people’s designs, artwork, or other creative content without permission. Based on the information provided above, it appears that in order for the team to use the image it would have to consider it a sponsorship, hence, permission was given to use it. With that said, it appears that Section 1.6 would not be violated and said image could be used on T‐shirts, other apparel, or other non‐competition related material. However, the image could not be used (recognized) in the Oral Presentation, Design Paper, or Product Display, per Section 1.5 as it would not be “for informational purposes only” but to actually show sponsorship.

RFI No. 39 Subject: Eligibility Posted 10.31.16

QUESTION: In reference to Section 1.2.1: Our University has an ASAC of ABET accredited Occupational Safety Program. Would students enrolled in this program meet the requirements of Section 1.2.1 (a) and be eligible to be a registered participant in the competition?

RESPONSE: Section 1.2.1.a states that registered participants must be, among other things, "...undergraduate student majoring in engineering or engineering technology program...." The Occupational Safety Program would not qualify as engineering or engineering technology unless EAC or ETAC were the ABET commissions accrediting the program. Students enrolled in that program are more than welcome to assist in the project, but cannot be registered participants (i.e., the ones that present and/or paddle) in the competition.

RFI No. 46 Subject: Section 1, General Rules and Eligibility Requirements Posted 11.8.16

QUESTION: My situation: I am graduating this semester, but meet all the requirements to allow me to compete on the concrete canoe team for my university. However, our university is hosting the Conference this upcoming March/April and I am also on the planning committee for this event. This means that I am a part of the team that organizes and plans the conference and each event. Our team is not using any of this knowledge to our advantage. My question is if it is an issue that am on the conference planning team and competing in the concrete canoe competition?

RESPONSE: There is no apparent conflict in serving on the planning committee for your conference and on the canoe team itself. With that said, we suggest that you refer back to the ASCE Code of Ethics to provide guidance on how to avoid issues of serving in both roles.

RFI No. 52 Subject: Section 1.9, Spirit of the Competition Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: Per Section 1.9 Spirit of the Competition, "Under the “Spirit of the Competition,” the judges and/or the CNCCC may take disciplinary action, including warnings, point deductions, or disqualification of a team or entry for inappropriate use of materials, language, alcohol, uncooperativeness, or general unprofessional behavior or unethical behavior of team members or persons associated with a team."

Our question relates to the consideration of "inappropriate use of alcohol." Is this only in reference to consuming alcohol during the competition and related activities or does it include reference to alcohol as well? We ask this as the design of our canoe refers to an historical aspect of our school that includes a brewery. Alcohol will not be consumed



nor will it be a part of our display during the competition. Please provide clarification regarding the phrase "inappropriate use of alcohol."

RESPONSE: Section 1.9 applies to personal and team conduct. The historic reference that includes the brewery as a part of your design would be permitted so long as it does not violate other provisions of the rules and does not create inappropriate conduct of the team or members of the team (e.g. consumption of alcohol as a part of the event, impaired behavior, etc.).

RFI No. 84 Subject: Registered Participants Posted: 01.25.17

QUESTION: How and when do we specify who are the actual ten people competing?

RESPONSE: Per Section 7.1.2.c.3, the names and ASCE National Member ID Numbers of all of the registered participants are to be provided on the Compliance Certificate. This is under Tab A. This is due when submitting the Design Paper and Project Overview and Technical Addendum.

The deadline is specified for the conference competitions by the conference host school (not by the CNCCC).

RFI No. 88 Subject: Section 1.2.2 Posted: 01.30.17

QUESTION: Does the 3 year registered participant rule apply only to national competition or does it apply to regional conferences as well? We have a freshman that wants to paddle this year but also wants to be a captain his senior year. We are working with him to decide if he should sit this conference out and keep his eligibility for future years.

RESPONSE: The 3‐year rule applies to both the conference and national competitions.

RFI No. 90 Subject: Concrete Canoe Competition Participation RFI Posted: 01.30.17

QUESTION: I have participated in our regional conference three times, but have only participated in Concrete Canoe twice. Can I be the concrete canoe co‐captain for our team this year?

Conference participation: 2014: Balsa Wood Bridge 2015: Concrete Canoe Paddler 2016: Concrete Canoe Captain

RESPONSE: ASCE highly encourages the participation of students in their respective student conferences. The 3 year rule applies to the concrete canoe competition only. Therefore, if you have been a registered participant only twice so far, you still have a year left of eligibility.

RFI No. 94 Subject: Section 1.2.2 Term Limits Posted: 02.01.17

QUESTION: In Section 1.2.2 Term Limits, it states that "Registered participation shall not exceed three (3) years (consecutive or non‐consecutive)."

One of our female students has been on the list of registered participants for three consecutive years, but one of those years the races (which is what she was registered to be a part of) were canceled.



She is one of three female members in our club and we were wondering if she could be registered to race this year and count this as her third year of registered participation.

RESPONSE: in this particular circumstance, this individual was a registered participant even if she did not paddle (and used up one year of eligibility). As such, she would not be eligible to compete as a registered participant this year.

RFI No. 141 Subject: Section 1.5 Sponsorship Posted: 02.16.17

QUESTION: "The use of trade and company names for services, products, and intellectual property shall be permitted in the design report, oral presentation and product display for informational purposes only"

Our team's theme is coffee this year and our canoe's name is a common Italian word and musical term, but it was inspired from a local coffee cafe which bears the same name. We want to clarify whether we are or are not abiding by the rules by using this Italian word.

Similarly, would it be okay to mention a company such as Starbucks which is more well‐known in the design paper and presentation? We would only mention them in regards to how the company uses sustainability or the development of the company and coffee.

RESPONSE: Strictly speaking, the name of the local café is probably a “common law trademark” within the local area, but if it’s a common Italian word, we do not consider this to be intellectual property that is prohibited from being used. In other words, it is ok to use.

Referring to Starbucks is fine as it is just for providing information about the actual company.

RFI No. 147 Subject: Copyright Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: The theme we choose is "Formula One". Since it is a brand name, we would like to know if we can state «Formula One» in the design paper and in the oral presentation or if we need an authorization form the company to do so. Formula One is not a sponsor of the team.

RESPONSE: The CNCCC contacted ASCE General Counsel for their feedback regarding this.

Interesting question! Formula One is definitely a registered trademark; however, it’s also the name of the design rules for the vehicles that race in an F1 race. So on the one hand, many people use F1 as a general description, but on the other hand, I see evidence that the F1 trademark owners can be a bit aggressive in enforcing their right to the mark.

I suppose I’d be inclined to suggest the students use “Formula Racing” as their theme. Candidly, using Formula One in the report and presentation alone is probably not going to cause any problems, but if you’re promoting the theme anywhere, I don’t want to give everyone the impression that the next canoe can be Harry Potter themed, etc."

With that said, the CNCCC will require that either you seek permission to use the trademark, copyright, etc. or use a more generic term for your theme.

Section 2 ‐ Canoe


SECTION 2 – Canoe

RFI No. 9 Subject: Canoe Mold Fabrication Posted 09.19.16

QUESTION: We have designed a hull for our canoe and have ordered a foam mold to be constructed and sent to us. I would like to confirm this acts in accordance with the rules for the competition. Our team designed the entire mold, but an outside company is actually fabricating it for us for when we will use it during construction with our eventual mix. I noticed a paragraph in this year’s rules about pictures showing our construction of the teams mold ‐ that is where I'm concerned as ours was purchased to match our design.

RESPONSE: Section 2.0, GENERAL (Canoe) states that “The fabrication of the canoe mold and lettering may be created with assistance from outside sources/vendors.” In regards to the photographs depicting mold construction, we would suggest that you contact the vendor to take photographs of various stages of construction (such as CNC milling) to be included as part of your photographs.

RFI No. 23 Subject: Section 2.6 Seats and Mats and Section 2.7 Slip Resistant Material Posted 10.14.16

QUESTION: Are there any rules in regards to the material by which the seats for paddlers can be made from. For example, in Section 2.7 it states that "The use of non‐skid tape or other slip resistant material is not permitted." Does this section only apply to material directly applied to the canoe? Could the seats be made of a slip resistant material or incorporate a slip resistant material such as rubber or non‐skid tape?

RESPONSE: There are no rules in regards to the materials used in the construction of the seats and/or mats. Section 2.7 applies to adhering non‐skid tape and other similar materials to the canoe itself.

RFI No. 40 Subject: Section 2.10.1 Floatation Requirements Posted 11.1.16

QUESTION: Our team had a question over Section 2.10.1 which states: "Canoes are to be able to pass the flotation test either by the inherently buoyant design of the canoe (i.e., lightweight concrete) or through the incorporation of flotation material in the design. For safety reasons, no hollow cavities or air bladders are permitted. Flotation material shall be solid blocks of material). Flotation material in the final form of particulates (such as foam peanuts, sawdust, and similar products) is not permitted. Flotation shall be limited to within 3 feet of the bow and stern sections. All flotation material that is incorporated into the canoe must be encased in concrete."

Does this allow our design to fully incorporate full blocks of material such as Styrofoam as long as these substances are fully encased inside of the concrete of the canoe? If they can be, are there any physical limits or dimensions that prevent the use of such materials?

RESPONSE: The answers you seek are within the questions you ask (well, the paragraph preceding the questions).

Flotation material shall be solid blocks of material. Flotation shall be limited to within 3 feet of the bow and stern sections. All flotation material that is incorporated into the canoe must be encased in concrete.

Section 2 ‐ Canoe


RFI No. 41 Subject: Section 2.10.1 Floatation Requirements Posted 11.4.16

QUESTION: Section 2.10.1 states that flotation is limited to within 3 feet of the bow and stern sections. Does that conflict with the dimensions shown on Figure 2.2?

RESPONSE: Figure 2.2 is for the limits of rigid gunwale protection (Section 2.9) and does not show limits of flotation as described in Section 2.10.1, therefore, there is no conflict.

RFI No. 60 Subject: Section 2.11.3 Repair Materials Posted 11.30.16

QUESTION: We are ordering our canoe mold from a company not the actual canoe. The company which we would like to order our canoe mold applies a layer of epoxy by default. Is this considered illegal being that it is part of the construction process of the canoe?

RESPONSE: The mold can be made out of any material(s). When laying up the canoe itself (concrete and reinforcement), the use of epoxy, etc., is not permitted.

RFI No. 75 Subject: The legality of Bondo® and fiberglass resin in mold construction Posted: 01.20.17

QUESTION: Excerpt of interest: 3.0 GENERAL "Concrete mixtures are considered as unique and independent mixes and shall comply with all of the requirements of this section. The use of pre‐packaged or pre‐mixed concrete, mortar, or grout is not permitted. Bondo®, epoxy or similar materials are not permitted during any stages of the construction of the canoe (i.e., as the component of the mixture itself, as an aid during the placement of concrete, as a modifier of the reinforcement, or as a means of attaching the flotation material). Mixtures used as filler and patching materials during the construction of the canoe, including repairs of any defects generated during the initial construction (such as cracks, “bug holes,” low spots, etc.,) shall meet all of the requirements of this section."

In 2015 and 2016, the same line was worded as "Bondo®, epoxy or similar materials are not permitted at any time during the casting of the canoe (i.e., placement of concrete, reinforcement and flotation) but are permitted in the construction of the canoe mold."

In the past, our team has used Bondo in the construction of our foam mold and coated the mold in fiberglass resin. Is fiberglass resin, Bondo, or epoxy legal to use in the construction of the mold (not in the concrete itself) for the 2017 competition?

RESPONSE: Section 3 deals specifically with concrete mixtures. There are no regulations regarding mold construction and therefore it can be made out of any materials that the teams see fit.

RFI No. 87 Subject: Flotation Dimensional Constraints Posted: 01.25.17

QUESTION: Subject: 2.10.1 Requirements, Flotation shall be limited to within 3 feet of the bow and stern sections. Please confirm whether the flotation is limited to within 3 feet of each of the bow and stern section or the flotation is limited to within 3 feet of sum of the bow and stern sections.

RESPONSE: Flotation is limited to 3 feet of either end (you could consider it 6 feet total, with 3 feet maximum limit at either end). While Figure 2.2 shows 2 feet (the rules call for 3 feet, and therefore governs), it does depict what the intent is.

Section 2 ‐ Canoe


RFI No. 93 Subject: Subject: 2.10.1 Flotation Requirements Posted: 02.01.17

QUESTION: This section states that "Flotation shall be limited to within 3 feet of the bow and stern sections". Does this rule apply to the length of the bulkheads, which in our case would be solid foam encased in concrete?

RESPONSE: Yes.

RFI No. 109 Subject: Drain Plug Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Within Section 2 ‐ Canoe, the rules state the intents and limitations of the canoe for concrete, structural elements, paddles, flotation, etc. However, there are no statements regarding the implementation of a drain plug into the canoe. The dimensions of most drain plug flanges are 1.5 ‐ 2" O.D. and have a thickness of 0.5" with a central hole for the plug. The flange would be mounted flush with the canoe's exterior surface. We desire to install a marine drain plug (stainless or bronze) with a flange into the bottom, aft section of the canoe forward of the flotation bulkhead for post‐conference display at our university. The plug would serve no structural or race purpose for the canoe nor hinder the safety of the rowers. Please advise whether the usage of a drain plug within a canoe is acceptable.

RESPONSE: Unless the drain plug is made of concrete, it is not allowed.

RFI No. 117 Subject: Section 2.6: Seats and Mats Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: For stability purposes, we plan on using seats in our canoe during paddling. In the rules it states that "seats cannot exceed a 20” x 20” x 20” maximum". Can it be any shape or size as long as it fall within the said parameters?

RESPONSE: As long as it could fit into a box 20” x 20” x 20” it is permitted. And to answer the question that popped into your head, no, you cannot fold it and make it fit into a 20” x 20” x 20” box.

RFI No. 118 Subject: Canoe Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: Is it against the rules to reuse last year's canoe?

RESPONSE: If the actual intent of this question was to ask if a team could reuse the hull design from the previous year in the construction of the 2017 canoe, then the answer is yes, you are allowed to.

If the intent of the question was to ask to actually use the 2016 canoe in the 2017 competition, then the answer is no.

RFI No. 130 Subject: 2.6 SEATS AND MATS Posted: 02.14.17

QUESTION: Are paddlers allowed to wear protective gear, such as knee pads, while racing? If so, can they be worn while also using a seat or a mat?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Section 3 ‐ Concrete


RFI No. 149 Subject: Section 2.6, Seats and Mats Posted: 02.21.19

QUESTION: We are considering using a hard mat which can key into or onto a groove or rib in our canoe; this would not be designed for structural support, but for extra stability for paddlers during the races. So long as the mat is within the dimensions specified in 2.6, would this qualify as a legal mat for competition?

RESPONSE: As long as the proposed mat is not keyed into the canoe itself, it may be used.

SECTION 3 – Concrete RFI No. 1 Subject: Section 3.3.3 ‐ Aggregate Proportioning Posted 09.13.16

QUESTION: Please confirm the attached diagram is in compliance with the above specifications in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3.3.3 – Aggregate Proportioning.

RESPONSE: The graphic provided is a correct representation of the minimum design requirements of Section 3.3.3 (it should be pointed out that the percentages are based on volume). We will note that (b) refers to “manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres” and not just glass microspheres. In addition, we will point out that (c) states that there is no requirements to use manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres at all.

RFI No. 2 Subject: Section 3.3.3 ‐ Aggregate Proportioning Posted 09.13.16

QUESTION: Concerning the Section 3.3.3 b., the statement “that must be compliant with ASTM C330” applies to which aggregate source? Is it correct to assume that out of the total aggregate volume, 25% must comply with ASTM C330 without being glass microspheres and/or Poraver, while the rest can be anything else?

RESPONSE: Your reasoning is correct. Section 3.3.3.b indeed requires 25% (at a minimum) of the total aggregate volume to be compliant with ASTM C330 AND not be a manufactured glass microsphere and/or cenospheres. Teams may have more than one aggregate source that meets this requirement to comprise the 25%.

RFI No. 5 Subject: Section 3.4.5 ‐ Concrete Sample(s) Cylinders Posted 09.13.16

QUESTION: Section 3.4.5 – Concrete Sample(s) Cylinders specifies two samples per mix design shall be made available:

1) “…a quality control (QC) test cylinder taken at the time of construction…representative of the in‐place density, color, consistency and make‐up of the concrete(s) used in the canoe. The concrete cylinders shall be provided in two halves…”

2) “one (1) complete (unbroken)…sample…must be available for the purposes of unit weight verification…”

The closing line of this section states, “The samples provided shall be oven‐dried (refer to Section 3.3.4.2, Dry Unit Weight).” The intent of cylinders in the oven‐dry condition are to test dry unit weight. Please advise if the QC test cylinders provided in two halves should be presented in the oven‐dry condition as well as the complete (unbroken) samples used for unit weight verification.

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for the condition of the cylinder broken/sawn in half that is on the display, as they are not the samples that are being checked. Only the sample being used for unit weight verifications is required to be in the OD condition.



RFI No. 10 Subject: Section 3.3.3 Regarding Gradation Requirements Posted 09.19.16

QUESTION: For the aggregates used to meet requirements in Section 3.3.3, Aggregate Proportioning, do the aggregates need to meet the specified grading requirements given in Table 1 of ASTM C330? For fine aggregates, Table ASTM C330 states that the grading shall conform to the following requirement (see figure).

There are several suppliers that provide aggregates samples that fall within ASTM C330 standards that do not meet the grading requirements because they are "too fine" and do not contain 3/4 in. aggregates. Must teams purchase the aggregates in accordance with this grading standard within the standard or, since used for this unique application, can they bypass the specified grading requirements? Furthermore, if teams are required to acquire aggregates within this grading requirement, are team allowed to sieve out larger size aggregates to use in their mix or must they use the aggregates in their mix per the grading requirements in Table 1.

RESPONSE: Teams are required to use aggregates that are ASTM C330 compliant (and stated as such by the manufacturer/supplier). However, teams may modify the particle size distribution (gradation) themselves to be different than the ASTM C330 requirements. From ASTM C330 compliant aggregate source(s), teams may select (i.e. mechanically sieve) to isolate and remix any particle size(s) to a final gradation as they see fit. Note that Table 1, Grading Requirements for Lightweight Aggregate for Structural Concrete, includes fine, coarse and combined fine and coarse aggregate gradations; the Rules and Regulations do not specifically identify fine aggregate only.

RFI No. 11 Subject: DWSP (Domestic Waste Sludge Powder) Posted 09.20.16

QUESTION: Referring to Section 3.3.2 “Type and Amount of Cementitious Materials”, we would like to explore the use of a custom‐made product, DWSP (Domestic Waste Sludge Powder), in our concrete canoe as either a cement replacement ‐ similar to fly ash ‐ or as an aggregate. The process would require collection of the sludge from the local treatment plant, burning it to ash or clinker and then using it in a similar fashion as fly ash or as an aggregate. The issue is, since we would be manufacturing the powder/aggregate, there would be no MTDS or other type of data sheet associated with the material. Would it be acceptable to use this product, in the spirit of sustainability and research, as part of our canoe?

RESPONSE: We encourage the use of sustainable products in this competition and the potential use of DWSP would be permitted. Since the team would be custom‐making the product, relevant properties would need to be provided depending on its proposed use (supplemental cementitious material versus aggregate).

As a SCM, typical physical characteristics such as bulk density, specific gravity (needed for the volumetric design), set time and strength development using mortar cubes should be provided at a minimum. For aggregate, size distribution, fineness modulus, absorption, specific gravity, bulk density and unit weight are the properties that are important and thus expected to be reported. With that said, the team cannot certify that the aggregate is ASTM C330 compliant (but it can be used to account for up to 75% of the total aggregate volume).

In addition to the above mentioned properties, which can be determined using standard laboratory techniques, the MTDS should include some recommendations on use and design of concrete mixtures incorporating these products as well as some comments on the expected benefits from using this material.

RFI No. 12 Subject: Section 3.3.3. b. Aggregate Proportioning Posted 09.21.16

QUESTION: Our team wished to select hollow ceramic sphere, vermiculite, shell sand (mashed shell) or floating bead as the aggregate to meet the requirement of (b) of the above referenced section. These materials are compliant with ASTM C330. Please confirm that these four kinds of aggregate mentioned above are the aggregate sources other than



manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres which could be used to meet the requirement of (b) in our mix design.

RESPONSE: ASTM C330, Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete, covers lightweight aggregates intended for use in structural concrete in which prime considerations are reducing the density while maintaining the compressive strength of the concrete. There are two general types of lightweight aggregates that are covered: aggregates prepared by expanding, pelletizing, or sintering products such as blast‐furnace slag, clay, diatomite, fly ash, shale, or slate (Section 3.1.1 of the standard) and aggregates prepared by processing natural materials, such as pumice, scoria, or tuff (Section 3.1.2 of the standard). For a particular aggregate to be C330 compliant, it must meet the maximum and minimum requirements presented in Section 4, Chemical Composition, and Section 5, Physical Properties, of the standard.

Vermiculite is a naturally occurring lightweight clay that exfoliates when heated. While it meets Section 3.1.1 of the standard, its inclusion in concrete would reduce density but with a significant reduction in the compressive strength. “Floating beads,” which we assume are made of material such as polystyrene, are not one of the general types of aggregate defined by the standard and their inclusion in concrete would reduce density with a reduction in the compressive strength. As such, these, and similar products, would not be ASTM C330 compliant.

Shell sand (mashed shells) appears to fall under the Section 3.1.2 as a processed natural material. It is unknown whether or not it will comply with the standard. Microspheres (and similar product names) might fall under the definition of Section 3.3.1 or 3.1.2 of the standard depending on its chemical/mineral makeup. However, in each case, teams must provide manufacturer documentation that show the material is ASTM C330 compliant (and certified as such).

RFI No. 14 Subject: Section 3.3.1, Number of Concrete Mixtures Posted 09.22.16

QUESTION: We understand the number of concrete mixtures used in the project has to be limited to three. If there is two variants to the same mixture (one with added pigments and the other left to its original color and no added pigments) would the variants be considered as one or two mixtures?

RESPONSE: As long as the only variant is the addition of pigments to the concrete (i.e., the amount of cm, fibers, aggregate, w/cm ratio, etc. stay the same), then it would be considered one mixture.

RFI No. 15 Subject: Section 3.2.3.4, Polymer Modifiers (Akkro‐7T) Posted 09.28.16

QUESTION: Section 3.2.3.4 requires polymer modifiers to comply with ASTM C1438 Type II, which deals with materials “used as modifiers in hydraulic cement concretes and mortars to improve adhesion and reduce permeability”. Section 3.2.3.4.1 prohibits bonding adhesives under ASTM C1059, which deals with materials “intended for bonding old and new concrete”.

Akkro‐7T is a polymer modifier “used to produce polymer modified concrete and mortar” according to its technical data (attached). It is primarily used as the mixing liquid and also a hydrating liquid for several types of concrete, mortar, finisher, and stucco. It is listed as “improving bond strength” and “resisting water penetration“. These descriptions match closely with the description of ASTM C1438 Type II. However, Akkro‐7T is listed as compliant with ASTM C1059.

Please confirm that Akkro‐7T is acceptable as it functions more like an ASTM C1438 Type II material than an ASTM C1059 material, and it therefore meets the intent of the rules.

Material webpage: http://www.euclidchemical.com/products/construction‐products/bonding‐agents‐adhesives/latex‐based/akkro‐7t/



Technical data: http://euclidchemical.com/fileshare/ProductFiles/TechData/Akkro_7T.pdf

RESPONSE: ASTM C1059, Standard Specification for Latex Agents for Bonding Fresh To Hardened Concrete, covers the requirements for latex bonding agents suitable for use in brushes, brooms, or sprays. The bonding agents are intended for use in bonding fresh concrete to hardened concrete such as in interior surfaces, floors, roadways, bridge decks, ramps, runways, walks, and curbs. The intent of Section 3.2.3.4.1 is to prohibit bonding adhesives under ASTM C1059 to be used in lieu of latex under ASTM C1438. Since the material in question is only compliant with C1059, by rule it is not permitted.

RFI No. 16 Subject: Section 3.3.3.b. Aggregate Proportioning Posted 09.28.16

QUESTION: Our team want to confirm that hollow ceramic sphere(made from shale) and floating bead (made from fly ash) can be regarded as an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres.

RESPONSE: This is a follow up to RFI No. 12 (posted 09.21.16). While the materials used for preparation of your aggregates (i.e. shale and fly ash) fall under the Section 3.1.1 of the ASTM C330 standard, it is still a requirement for a team to show that the material is ASTM C330 compliant (and certified as such). If such documentation cannot be produced, then the aggregates cannot be considered as part of the 25% of ASTM C330 compliant material required. They can however, be used as part of the remaining 75% of the aggregate volume.

RFI No. 20 Subject: Certifying ASTM C330 Compliance Posted 10.06,16

QUESTION: We are trying to use an aggregate that doesn't specify in the MTDS that it complies with the ASTM C330. Could we get the aggregate tested in a certified lab to prove that the material complies with ASTM C330 and provide the documentation in Tab C of the Project Overview and Technical Addendum?

RESPONSE: This is an acceptable method to certify compliance with ASTM C330. In fact, manufacturers send their product on a frequent basis to independent testing laboratories in order to show compliance.

RFI No. 22 Subject: MasterEmaco A 660 Posted 10.14.16

QUESTION: Section 3.2.3.4 requires polymer modifiers to comply with ASTM C1438 Type II, which deals with materials “used as modifiers in hydraulic cement concretes and mortars to improve adhesion and reduce permeability”. MasterEmaco A 660 is a polymer modifier that “enhances the adhesion, physical properties and durability of portland cement mortars, plasters, stucco, and concrete mixes” and acts as a hydrating and mixing liquid. This description matches closely with that of ASTM C1438 Type II. However, MasterEmaco A 660 has not been tested to comply with any specific ASTM.

In RFI #15, it was stated that “the intent of Section 3.2.3.4.1 is to prohibit bonding adhesives under ASTM C1059 to be used in lieu of latex under ASTM C1438”. Since MasterEmaco A 660 is not an ASTM C1059 bonding adhesive, and is a latex by definition that operates like an ASTM C1438 material, please confirm it is acceptable to use.

Material Webpage: https://www.master‐builders‐solutions.basf.us/en‐us/products/masteremaco/1569



Technical Data: http://www.scrantonsthruway.com/documents/Spec%20Data%20Sheets/BASFAcryl60.pdf

RESPONSE: The CNCCC conferred with BASF regarding MasterEmaco A 660 and they stated that is an acrylic‐polymer emulsion based product and is not a latex which most likely explains why it has not been tested in accordance with ASTM C1438, which is specifically for latex and powder polymers that are redispersed in water to form a latex. By rule, this particular product is not permitted.

RFI No. 24 Subject: Curing of Concrete Posted 10.14.16

QUESTION: In Section 2.0 and Section 3.3.7 states the following: "[...] "finishing" relates to sanding, sealing and application of letters” and “Concrete shall be cured after placement and finishing using an appropriate curing method." Does this mean that the curing must be done after applying the sealer and stickers of the lettering?

RESPONSE: The use of “and finishing” in Section 3.3.7 is not meant to imply that you must cure the concrete only after you finish sanding the canoe. Curing the canoe can occur while finishing is ongoing (such as applying wet burlap). Furthermore, Section 3.3.7 deals with liquid membrane‐forming compounds for curing concrete that are certified to meet the requirements of either ASTM C309 or ASTM C1315, which are standards for curing compounds and sealers.

RFI No. 26 Subject: Rice Hull Ash Posted 10.14.16

QUESTION; Is charred rice hull ash an acceptable cementitious material?

RESPONSE: Yes, RHA is an acceptable material.

RFI No. 27 Subject: Elemix Concrete Additive Posted 10.20.16

QUESTION; Our team is wondering for other cementitious materials would Elemix be allowed in the concrete mix? The link to the Elemix data information

http://www.syntheoninc.com/product‐lines/elemix‐concrete‐additive/

Due to the density of the material some of the testing was modified for ASTM standards. We are looking to use this product but before we continue with the mix wanted to make sure it is allowed or not.

RESPONSE: According to the data information (link above), Elemix is "concrete additive made of specially engineered polymeric spheres – lightweight synthetic particles (LSP) – that disperse uniformly throughout a concrete mix to replace a significant volume and weight of both normal and lightweight aggregate."

Elemix is not a supplemental cememtitious material, but an allowable aggregate source (which has been used by other teams in the past). The team will have to determine if it can be considered ASTM C330 compliant.

RFI No. 29 Subject: Section 3.2.3.5 Specialty Admixtures ‐ Pertaining To Specific Performance Admixtures Posted 10.21.16

QUESTION: The University Of Central Florida's very own Postdoctoral Research Associate, Dr. Jinyoung Kim and PhD Assistant Professor, Boo Hyun Nam, reached out to our Concrete Canoe team about a micro technology called Graphene Oxide they are currently doing research with. Their research shows that using a 0.05% weight ratio of Graphene Oxide from the total weight of cement can increase workability and strengthen our concrete mix by 15%.



We would like to use this in our mix design and report with hopes to represent a piece of the research done in our Civil Engineering department here at UCF. Please let us know if using this compound is within scope of this years NCCC Rules and Regulations.

http://garmortech.com/index.htm

RESPONSE: Based on our review of the materials provided to us, we conclude that the material is similar to the nano‐seeding type of admixtures some researchers are using to promote nucleation of the CSH and density at the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) and thus increase the rate of hydration and strength. As such, we would allow the use of this material as a non‐traditional admixture (hence, there would be no ASTM standard for it)

RFI No. 31 Subject: Is Elemix ASTM C330 Compliant? Posted 10.24.16

QUESTION: According to Section 3.3.3 Aggregate Proportioning, “a minimum of 25% of the total aggregate volume, per concrete mixture, in the OD condition, must be an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres, that must be compliant with ASTM C330.”

RFI 27 inquired about the use of Elemix concrete additive. The response indicated that Elemix is an “allowable aggregate source.” Does Elemix meet the requirements to be considered as part of the 25% by volume of non‐glass‐microspheres? According to a Syntheon representative, Elemix is recycled from expanded polystyrene.

RESPONSE: RFI 27 (posted 10.20.16) indicated that the Elemix concrete additive was an acceptable aggregate source as compared to being used as a supplemental cementitious material which had been the question posed in the RFI. There are a number of previous RFIs which have been posted that go into detail about what is required for an aggregate to be compliant with ASTM C330, in particular, RFI 12 (posted 09.21.16) and RFI 16 (posted 09.28.16). Based on our knowledge of this product, Elemix is not ASTM C330 compliant (unless the manufacturer can certify it as such), and therefore cannot be considered part of the 25% that must be ASTM C330 compliant, but it most certainly can be used for up to 75% of the remaining aggregate volume.

We will note that the Rules and Regulations do not state that Poraver and/or cenospheres are ASTM C330 compliant materials.

RFI No. 36 Subject: Mica Flakes as Aggregate Posted 10.26.16

QUESTION: Section 5.6 states, “Post‐manufacturer additives such as glitter or other particulate material are not permitted.” We are looking into using mica flakes to enhance the aesthetics of one of our concrete mixes. The mica flakes would be included as an aggregate within the mix design and will not be added with the sealer. Would this be an acceptable use of mica flakes?

RESPONSE: Since the team is considering mica flakes as an aggregate, Section 5.6 does not apply. As long as the mica flakes are mixed into the concrete, it is acceptable. Sprinkling mica flakes onto the surface of fresh concrete (prior to the application of a sealer) is not permitted.

RFI No. 37 Subject: Cem‐Coat Posted 10.26.16

QUESTION: "Any coloring agents or pigments used shall be in accordance with ASTM C979." We had a question about the options available to color our canoe. In the process of researching materials, we came across a material called "Cem‐Coat" which is a material containing portland cement, quartz, and iron oxide for coloring. We were wondering if



this material is within the rules because it contains portland cement. It is a "colored cementitious coating" and would allow us to use bright vibrant colors.

RESPONSE: "Cem‐Coat" is a two part sytem that consists of a powder component and a liquid dye. Combined, it is not permitted by the Rules to be used on the canoe. The liquid dye component, itself, may be compliant with ASTM C979, and if so, may be used in your concrete mixture(s).

RFI No. 42 Subject: Penetron Waterproofing Admixture Posted 11.4.16

QUESTION: In Section 3.2.3.5 “Specialty Admixtures” it requires that any specialty admixture conform to ASTM C494 Type S. There is no rule prohibiting the use of waterproofing admixtures in any form. Is the use of Penetron Admix, an integral waterproofing admixture, permissible?

RESPONSE: Yes,

RFI No. 43 Subject: Stalite and Riverlite Posted 11.4.16

QUESTION: Our team has run into some difficult to satisfy Section 3.3.3 part b which states: A minimum of 25% of the total aggregate volume, per concrete mixture, in the OD condition, must be an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres, that must be compliant with ASTM C330.

Based on our research, we have seen expanded shale as a potential aggregate to satisfy this requirement. We were wondering if expanded shale from Stalite which is a rotary kiln based expanded shale was a sufficient aggregate to utilize in order to satisfy the requirement above and if similar products like Riverlite Trinity Lightweight from locations such as trinity were also sufficient.

RESPONSE: Reference is made to RFI No. 12 (posted 09.21.16) where the response goes into detail about ASTM C330,Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete. There are two general types of lightweight aggregates that are covered: aggregates prepared by expanding, pelletizing, or sintering products such as blast‐furnace slag, clay, diatomite, fly ash, shale, or slate (Section 3.1.1 of the standard) and aggregates prepared by processing natural materials, such as pumice, scoria, or tuff (Section 3.1.2 of the standard).

Stalite(tm) falls under Section 3.1.1 of the standard. If Riverlite is a similar product, it most likely falls under the same section.

With that said, the companies should have documentation which states that they are ASTM C330 compliant (and teams need to have this documentation in hand).

RFI No. 44 Subject: Section 3.4 "Documentation" Posted 11.8.16

QUESTION: Referring to section 3.4 "Documentation", we are currently unable to locate a specific gravity for the aggregate we are considering. We have noted RFI No. 20 and would be able to send the aggregate to a certified lab but would rather do the testing in house. Could we perform the specific gravity testing ourselves or are we obligated to send it to a certified lab?

RESPONSE; Teams can perform applicable testing "in‐house".



RFI No. 45 Subject: Calcined Agricultural Waste product Posted 11.8.16

QUESTION: We would like to use a calcined agricultural waste product as a potential secondary cementitious material. We have included a chemical analysis of the material and will run the necessary tests such as, bulk density, specific gravity, set time and strength development using mortar cubes, that are required for SCM. However, we do not possess a MTDS because it is a locally procured product.

RESPONSE: If the team demonstrates that it can be used as a SCM, the CNCCC would allow it under Section 3.2.1.6.

RFI No. 47 Subject: Specifying Gradation Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: We are aware of your answer to RFI 10. Is it permissible to say that the section of material highlighted in the table is the fine section of the aggregate blend and purchase a material that only includes that portion of the gradation?

During our searches for material that meet ASTM C330 we have found that to get enough material for our mix after sieving the aggregate it would require us to acquire 2‐3 times the amount of material that we actually needed (this is due to the limitations of the gradation). Is it correct in thinking that this is what the judges expect to happen? In both a practical sense and a sustainable sense this is not a good choice.

We do not want to use anything larger than a number 8 sieve to maintain our boats design thickness, if we go larger, then the rules will be dictating our design.

RESPONSE: Note that Table 1, Grading Requirements for Lightweight Aggregate for Structural Concrete, in ASTM C30, includes fine, coarse and combined fine and coarse aggregate gradations; the Rules and Regulations do not specifically identify a gradation. RFI No. 10 states that teams may modify the particle size distribution (gradation) themselves to be different than the ASTM C330 requirements. Requesting a specific gradation from the supplier is permitted as long as the supplier also provides documentation of ASTM C330 compliance for the original source material.

Rhetorical question ‐ Aren't the rules dictating your design?

RFI No. 48 Subject: Pumice Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: We have an aggregate (pumice), that is ASTM C330 compliant and we also have a smaller size of pumice. The suppliers said that the smaller size of pumice was chemically approved for ASTM C330 but the sizes were too fine to test. Will we be able to use the smaller size of pumice even if it was too fine to test but it is just a smaller version of the ASTM C330 approved pumice? We will be able to provide the documents stating that the larger size of pumice is ASTM C330 approved?

RESPONSE: RFI No. 10 states that teams may modify the particle size distribution (gradation) themselves to be different than the ASTM C330 requirements. Requesting a specific gradation from the supplier is permitted as long as the supplier also provides documentation of ASTM C330 compliance for the original source material.

RFI No. 49 Subject: Aggregate Proportioning Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: I had a question regarding Section 3.3.3 of the rules. It pertains to the aggregate proportion that must meet ASTM C330. If you could confirm my understanding of the rule that would be much appreciated. A minimum of



25% of the total mix volume must be aggregate, and a minimum of 25% of all the aggregate must meet ASTM C330. So in other words no less than 6.25% of the total mix by volume, or 1.6875 cubic feet (out of a cubic yard) must be aggregate that meets ASTM C330.

RESPONSE: That would be correct (base on final yielded proportions).

RFI No. 50 Subject: What’s a Cenosphere? Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: Can you please confirm your definition of a cenosphere? We are looking for a clear definition, because we have found other types of spheres that conform to ASTM C330, but want to make sure they can count towards the "25% of the total aggregate volume....other than manufactured glass microspheres and/or cenospheres."

RESPONSE: In the context of the Rules and Regulations, the term "cenosphere" refers to the hollow, spherical fly ash particle with nonporous shell composed mostly of silica and alumina (with varying amounts of iron and calcium) and filled with air. The fly ash is the by‐product (inorganic residue) of burning pulverized coal in electrical power plants. Since the cenospheres are separated from the solid fly ash particles by flotation method, they are considered to be a waste product (by‐product) rather than a manufactured product.

With that said, the intent of Section 3.3.3.(b) of the Rules and Regulations was to stimulate the innovation in the mixture design process by limiting the use of manufactured glass microspheres (which became the "default" aggregate for many teams) and replace them with other types of innovative, lightweight aggregates. Keep in mind that there is a wide range of hollow spheres, microspheres, microballons, etc. (with various trade names as well) available on the market, and are made of glass, ceramic, or glass‐ceramics and are considered “manufactured” and therefore cannot count towards the 25% ASTM C330 requirement.

There are also naturally occurring glasses (typically from volcanism) which may be considered “microspheres” depending on their particle size. Such naturally occurring materials may be used to meet the 25% requirement, if they are shown to be ASTM C330 compliant.

RFI No. 53 Subject: Aggregate Proportioning Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: I want to clarify that the following aggregates are prohibited to be used as a part of the 25% aggregate rule this year.

Poraver Expanded Glass Beads 3M Glass Bubbles Cenostar Cenospeheres PVA Fibers

RESPONSE: Section 3.3.3.b. states that “A minimum of 25% of the total aggregate volume, per concrete mixture, in the OD condition, must be an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres, that must be compliant with ASTM C330.” It specifically calls out Poraver and cenospheres. 3M glass bubbles fall under the manufactured glass microsphere category. Lastly, fibers are not aggregate.



RFI No. 57 Subject: Section 3.4.4 Display Board Posted 11.30.16

QUESTION: Section 3.4.4 states that the individual aggregates and composite aggregate blends "shall be made available as part of the product display". Does this mean that the containers must be able to be removed from the display board? Also, are the containers required to have a lid.

RESPONSE: The containers do not have to be removable, but for practical purposes, they should be covered, capped, or otherwise contained to prevent spillage.

RFI No. 58 Subject: Misapor or Geocell (Glass Gravel) Posted 11.30.16

QUESTION: Section 3.3.3 (Aggregate Proportioning) describes an aggregate that must be "other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres." Our team is considering using foam glass gravel that we manually crush in the lab, such as Misapor or Geocell. Since this type of material is glass but is not manufactured with the specific dimensions that micro‐ or cenospheres are, we would like to assume that, as long as it is ASTM C330 compliant, it is permissible. Could you please confirm?

RESPONSE: Foam glass aggregate would be permissible and may count towards the required volume portion if shown to be ASTM C330 compliant.

RFI No. 59 Subject: Edencrete 500 Posted 11.30.16

QUESTION: Section 3.2.3.5 Specialty Admixtures states that specific performance admixtures shall meet the requirements of ASTM C494 Type S.

Our team has been exploring the idea of using carbon nano‐tubes in our concrete mix. The product, Edencrete 500 (the carbon nano‐tubes) is a specialty admixture that increases compressive and tensile strengths, reduces cracks from shrinkage, and reduces permeability, along with many other features (though these are the only features we are focusing on). Edencrete 500 achieves many things in one product instead of using multiple different admixtures.

As a team we have met with an engineer at Edencrete about certification under ASTM C494 Type S. The product is currently in the final stages of certification, which will be completed by December 3, 2016.

Do materials used in concrete mixtures need to have ASTM certification before the NCCC Rules and Regulations are released or just before the competition?

RESPONSE: Before the competition.

RFI No. 61 Subject: Section 3.3.3.b Aggregate Proportioning Posted 12.06.16

QUESTION: If a team fails to have another source of aggregate in one of their mix designs, will the infraction result in a disqualification as stated in 13.6.2.c Failure to follow academic year, rebuilding, and material requirements (Sections 2 through 5), or will the team encounter infractions on the deduction score cards in Appendix A?

RESPONSE: At a minimum the penalties listed in Appendix A can be expected to be applied. The material requirements under Section 13.6.2.c are more for items such as the use of Bondo, epoxies, etc. With that said, a conscious decision to violate the rules (such as knowing leaving out a required aggregate source) may result in additional consequences including and up to disqualification under Section 1.9, Spirit of the Competition.



RFI No. 62 Subject: Cenospheres Posted 12.16.16

QUESTION: Section 3.3.3b of the NCCC Rules & Regulations states that "manufactured glass microspheres... and/or cenospheres" does not count towards meeting the 6.25% total aggregate volume.

Per RFI No. 50, cenospheres are defined as a "waste product (by‐product) rather than a manufactured product." Is it correct to infer that cenospheres are, therefore, allowed to be used to meet the 6.25% total aggregate volume provided that they also comply with ASTM C330?

RESPONSE: This has been covered in several RFIs already. Section 3.3.3.b states "A minimum of 25% of the total aggregate volume, per concrete mixture, in the OD condition, must be an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres, that must be compliant with ASTM C330."

The correct way to interpret this is as follow:

(1) Up to 75% of the aggregate volume can be manufactured glass microspheres, cenospheres, or a combination of the two. (2) A minimum of 25% of the aggregate volume must be something other than a manufactured glass microsphere or cenosphere AND be ASTM C330 compliant (and documented as such).

Please refer to RFI No. 1, Section 3.3.3 ‐ Aggregate Proportioning (Posted 09.13.16), which explains this with a graphic.

RFI No. 65 Subject: Number of Concrete Mixtures Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: In section 3.3.1 it says "Teams are limited to a total of three unique concrete mixture designs." Now does this mean during the testing phase we can only test three different mixes? Or that we can test as many as we want but only three of the ones tested may be used for the canoe?

RESPONSE: Only three unique mixtures may be used in the construction of canoe. You can develop and test as many mixtures as needed to get to those three.

RFI No. 68 Subject: Section 3.4.4: Aggregate Sample(s) Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: In Section 3.4.4: Aggregate Sample(s), it is stated that: "A 500 milliliter (min.) representative samples of both the individual aggregates and composite aggregate blends used in each concrete mixture shall be made available as part of the product display (Section 10.1.b)."

Does this mean that samples of the other ingredients of the concrete mixes do not need to be present in the table top display (cementicious, admixtures, etc.) or that only the aggregate samples need to be in containers of this size?

Also, what exactly does composite aggregate blends refer to? For example, our team uses Elemix and different gradations of Poraver, would it then be 1 container with the composite blend of only the different gradations of Poraver in it (with the proportions to scale) or would it be 1 composite blend of all the aggregates used in one of our concrete mixes?

RESPONSE: Section 10.1.b indicates what would be considered the minimum requirements of what is to be provided with the Product Display. With that said, teams typically provide samples of cm, admixtures, etc.

The composite aggregate would reflect the proportions used in the mixture. For example if you have 1 part Elemix to 2 parts Poraver in the canoe, then your composite sample would still be 1 part to 2 parts. <Continue on next page>



The Poraver (which has different grades) can be placed in one container to represent this particular project (i.e., the team does not need to show 5 separate samples for 5 separate grades).

RFI No. 72 Subject: Section 3.2.2, Fibers Posted 01.04.17

QUESTION: Section 3.2.2 requires fibers to comply with ASTM C1116, which deals with fiber‐reinforced concrete. Short Stuff Fibrillated HDPE Fibers is a fiber material that meets the vast majority of these requirements. However, since ASTM C1116 is designed with more traditional fibers in mind, Short Stuff is unable to be effectively tested to these standards due to its highly fibrillated nature. Nonetheless, this product has been used widely in industry for many years and has proven its effectiveness as fiber reinforcement. Therefore, please confirm that Short Stuff Fibrillated HDPE Fibers is an acceptable fiber to use.

RESPONSE: These fibers are acceptable.

RFI No. 73 Subject: Recycled Concrete Aggregate Posted 01.12.17

QUESTION: My team has recently thought about crushing up last year's canoe to use as aggregate. However, last year's canoe is made up of Poraver, So we are wondering if it would still qualify as the 25% volume of alternate aggregate. We understand that the idea of implementing this rule this year is to encourage innovation and we feel that our solution does that, even though it still technically incorporates Poraver.

RESPONSE: The use of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) is allowed, regardless of the aggregate used in the concrete itself, and has been used by other teams in the past. However, Section 3.3.3.b states that the 25% of the total aggregate volume must be compliant with ASTM C330. Unless you have documentation certifying that the RCA meets ASTM C30, the team cannot consider it for the 25%. The team may use it for any part of the remaining 75% of the aggregate volume.

RFI No. 74 Subject: Is there a mistake in Table 3.1? Posted: 01.12.17

QUESTION: Is there a mistake in the Volume SSD for Aggregate A? Isn’t that value supposed to be 5.128 instead of 3.128? I get that by dividing 144 pounds by Gs times 62.4 pcf.

RESPONSE: The table being referred to is in Appendix C. Yes, the correct value of the volume of aggregate A in the SSD should be 5.128 cf (it is a typographic error on our part). The absolute volume of aggregate of 11.114 cf (at the bottom of the table) is still correct (and equals 5.128 + 4.135 + 1.851).

We apologize for the error and any confusion that this may have caused.

RFI No. 78 Subject: Is there a mistake in Table 3.1? Posted: 01.20.17

QUESTION: I hate to be the bearer of more bad news. Seems your 3’s and 5’s are not happy with each other.

For Aggregate C if the Absorption moisture (%) and the Stock pile Moisture Content are the same (5%), shouldn’t the Base Weights (lbs/yd^3) and the Batch Weight (pcy) be the same or 115.5 pounds. Or 110 *1.05=115.5? Right now the Batch weight says 115.3 pcy.



This correction will help father down the sheet if the students try to figure out that Total Free Water from all Aggregates (8.4 lbs from Aggregate A, ‐8.6 lbs from Aggregate B and then 0 lbs from Aggregate C sums to 0.2 pcy).

Love

Paul

RESPONSE: There is indeed another typo on Table 3.1 as highlighted in the picture below. Fortunately, the step‐by‐step calculation in Appendix C has it done correctly. The errors in the table were the result of transferring the numbers over, not in how they were calculated. Another good catch!

Hugs and Kisses

CNCCC

RFI No. 77 Subject: ASTM C330 Posted: 01.20.17

QUESTION: Keeping in mind that 25% of our mix aggregate must be something other than the expanded glass spheres, our team has tried to be innovative in our aggregate research and mix designs. We have been successful in creating a few designs and casts of high performance lightweight concrete material that we are proud of. We knew the used aggregates have not yet been tested to be compliant with ASTM standard C330 yet believe they very easily could pass such standards. However, we have found that testing in order to officially certify a material through a professional company can take as long as six months which practically eliminates the option of using any material that hasn’t already been thought of and ASTMC330 tested. Such hurdles are limiting our mix designs to undesired mixes that will not perform anywhere near as well as they could. Does every aspect of ASTMC330 specification need be tested if the material will not be subjected to certain conditions knowing it will only be subjected to conditions related to that of the concrete canoe competition? For example, testing for such conditions as the extreme freeze thaw testing etc..? If not, do you have any suggestions for contacts or methods to certify a material within a reasonable time frame?

RESPONSE: RFI 12 (posted 09.21.16) provided a synopsis of what is required for a material to meet the standards listed in ASTM C330. For a material to be ASTM C330 compliant it would have to be tested to the standard (not just part of it). This is one of the challenges put into the competition this year. The typical process for the manufacturers of these products is to send them out to independent labs (usually on a yearly basis or so) to certify them to be in compliance.

RFI No. 79 subject: Bonding adhesives (ASTM C1059) Posted: 01.24.17

QUESTION: "Concrete mixtures are considered as unique and independent mixes and shall comply with all of the requirements of this section. The use of pre‐packaged or pre‐mixed concrete, mortar, or grout is not permitted. Bondo®, epoxy or similar materials are not permitted during any stages of the construction of the canoe (i.e., as the component of the mixture itself, as an aid during the placement of concrete, as a modifier of the reinforcement, or as a means of attaching the flotation material). Mixtures used as filler and patching materials during the construction of the canoe, including repairs of any defects generated during the initial construction (such as cracks, “bug holes,” low spots, etc.,) shall meet all of the requirements of this section."

Section 3.2.3.4.1 states: "Bonding adhesives (ASTM C1059), which are intended for bonding old and new concrete, are prohibited and may not be used as an alternative to latex."

We are asking if it is acceptable to apply a Bonding Adhesive compliant with ASTM C1059 prior to placement of concrete before placing a new layer over top?

RESPONSE: Although Section 3.2.3.4.1 deals with bonding adhesives not being allowed in lieu of latex (as a polymer modifier for concrete), the section clearly states that its use is prohibited. Furthermore, teams are not allowed to



slather on such materials to bond old concrete with new concrete or as a coating to reinforcement prior to its installation.

RFI No. 89 Subject: Section 3.3.1 Number of Concrete Mixtures Posted: 01.30.17

QUESTION: Section 3.3.1 it states "Teams are limited to a total of three unique concrete mixture designs. If desired, any given mixture can be produced in multitude of colors as long as the color is the only thing that changes."

If two concrete mixtures are identical except one has a different amount of the same pigment making it a different color, would both mixtures need to be reported?

RESPONSE: If pigment amount changes, to get a different color, and there is no difference in the concrete constituents, this is still considered one unique mix.

RFI No. 91 Subject: Section 3.4.4, Aggregate Sample(s) Posted: 01.30.17

QUESTION: This rule states that "samples shall be provided in transparent containers..." The definition of transparent in this instance is "(of a material or article) allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen." Are containers allowed to be tinted a color as long as light is allowed to pass through or must they be both clear and allow light to pass through?

An example would be the containers in the attached image. While the containers are transparent and you are able to see through them, they are tinted a color.

RESPONSE: These are acceptable.

RFI No. 96 Subject: 3.3.3 Aggregate Proportioning Posted: 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per b. A minimum of 25% of the total aggregate volume, per concrete mixture, in the OD condition, must be an aggregate source other than manufactured glass microspheres (such as, but not limited to Poraver®) and/or cenospheres, that must be compliant with ASTM C330.

Our team select a kind of expanded perlite as the aggregate compliant with ASTM C330.However, there is almost no certified lab in China able to give us a certification of ASTM C330 since we don’t use the standard here.

Our team would like to know whether we can do some of the experiment of ASTM C330 in lab and give the certification in the same form as the ones given by other labs in America.

RESPONSE: The CNCCC understands the issues with non‐North American teams that may have issues with products that may not have ASTM certification (using an international standard instead). The team must demonstrate that a fully equivalent standard meets or exceeds the applicable ASTM standard and be certified as such.

RFI No. 97 Subject: Section 3.3.3.b Aggregate Proportioning Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: I am writing to inform CNCCC that my school's canoe has unknowingly violated section 3.3.3.b of the rule book. We failed to fulfill the minimum requirement of 25% of non‐glass microsphere aggregate and we discovered this violation only after we poured our canoe.



We have a canoe team that had a dramatic turnover of experience, only 1 member besides our captains has had experience on past canoe teams. One of our captains was studying abroad for half of the fall semester and the other captain who began the project lacked the necessary technical knowledge to catch this rule violation.

Our team is prepared to accept any points deduction that will occur from this rule violation and we hope that by informing the CNCCC of our mistake that we will avoid disqualification at our conference competition.

RESPONSE: For the benefit of others, RFI No. 61, Subject: Section 3.3.3.b Aggregate Proportioning (Posted 12.06.16) is provided below:

QUESTION: If a team fails to have another source of aggregate in one of their mix designs, will the infraction result in a disqualification as stated in 13.6.2.c Failure to follow academic year, rebuilding, and material requirements (Sections 2 through 5), or will the team encounter infractions on the deduction score cards in Appendix A?

RESPONSE: At a minimum the penalties listed in Appendix A can be expected to be applied. The material requirements under Section 13.6.2.c are more for items such as the use of Bondo, epoxies, etc. With that said, a conscious decision to violate the rules (such as knowing leaving out a required aggregate source) may result in additional consequences including and up to disqualification under Section 1.9, Spirit of the Competition.

The CNCCC appreciates the team's honesty in regards to the apparent oversight, but will assert that you basically are stating that you are reading the rules after actually placing the canoe (and furthermore, there are numerous RFIs regarding this matter). With that said, the judges would have to take this, and any other non‐compliance issues, on a case‐by‐case basis (and they can consult with the CNCCC on the appropriate deductions). The judges can reserve the right to render their decision based on obtaining additional information as they see fit.

RFI No. 100 Subject: Section 3.2.1.6 Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per Section 3.2.1.6, other secondary cementitious materials and pozzolans, such as but not limited to vitreous calcium aluminosilicate (VCAS™), are permitted. Teams wishing to incorporate a given material as a cementitious material/pozzolan and having questions or concerns of whether it is an acceptable material shall contact the CNCCC via e‐mail for a determination of its applicability.

Our team wished to crush the red clay brick and dumped concrete recycled from the construction waste into powders as the cementitious material in our mixes.

Please confirm the powders crushed from dumped concrete and red clay brick are acceptable as the cementitious material

RESPONSE: Additional information would need to be provided to shown that the crushed material could be classified as a SCM as even very fine powder may most likely be considered aggregate. Particle size and pozzalonic activity would need to be taken into consideration.

RFI No. 100 Subject: Section 3.2.1.6 Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per Section 3.2.1.6, other secondary cementitious materials and pozzolans, such as but not limited to vitreous calcium aluminosilicate (VCAS™), are permitted. Teams wishing to incorporate a given material as a cementitious material/pozzolan and having questions or concerns of whether it is an acceptable material shall contact the CNCCC via e‐mail for a determination of its applicability.

Our team wished to crush the red clay brick and dumped concrete recycled from the construction waste into powders as the cementitious material in our mixes.



Please confirm the powders crushed from dumped concrete and red clay brick are acceptable as the cementitious material

RESPONSE: Additional information would need to be provided to shown that the crushed material could be classified

as a SCM as even very fine powder may most likely be considered aggregate. Particle size and pozzalonic activity would

need to be taken into consideration.

RFI No. 103 Subject: Aggregate ‐ BioChar Posted 02.0117

QUESTION: Please confirm if BioChar, a product produced from the heating of wood without the presence of oxygen, would be an acceptable aggregate for use in our concrete mix.

Product website: http://www.biocharnow.com/index.php/biochar/what‐is‐biochar

RESPONSE: While this would be a unique application of this product, it can be considered an aggregate. It can be used to meet the 75% aggregate volume requirement (it is not ASTM C330 compliant) and the team will need to provide relevant properties (gradation, absorption, specific gravity, etc.)

RFI No. 105 Subject: Section 3.2.3.4 ‐ Polymer Modifiers Posted 02.02.17

QUESTION: Our team is interested in a particular latex product but cannot confirm through the manufacturer if the ASTM C 1438, Type II is met. Both products meet the FHWA RD‐78‐35 standards.

Please confirm or deny if the Trinseo SB latexes attached are legal in the competition, because they meet this requirement

It should be noted that the mix design has been already tested and is sufficient, but the captain elected to seek future mix designs with latex used.

Product 1: Modifier A‐NA Product 2: DL 460NA

RESPONSE: In this particular case, the team must demonstrate that the results of the testing to meet FHWA RD‐78‐35

standards either meets or exceeds the values required in ASTM C 1438, Type II.

RFI No. 112 Subject: Section 3.4.4, Aggregate Sample(s) Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Per section 3.4.4, "samples shall be provided in transparent containers, and labeled accordingly." Though “clouded,” the glass container in the attached image is essentially transparent and aggregate samples within would be visible such that judges may distinctly identify and view the contents. Our team's motivation for using such a container is to keep with the spirit of the competition by unifying our theme with our display. Please confirm that we may use containers identical and similar to the container shown.

RESPONSE: Please refer to RFI No. 91, Subject: Section 3.4.4, Aggregate Sample(s), posted: 01.30.17. If one can see the aggregate shapes and sizes through the container, it is allowed.



RFI No. 114 Subject: Ferro‐Cement Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Can Ferro‐Cement can be used for Concrete Canoe?

RESPONSE: Yes. Ferro‐cement is just concrete placed on steel mesh (typically) which is formed into shape. This is basically what a concrete canoe is (other than the fact that steel mesh is not the current reinforcement of choice of many teams).

RFI No. 115 Subject: Section 3.2.3.5 Specialty Admixtures Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: We wanted to know if we can use Concrete Foaming agent as a specialty admixture in our concrete mix. The specifications of the same are given below.

RESPONSE: The concrete foaming agent is acceptable.

RFI No. 133 Subject: Outdated ASTM C330 Compliance Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: One of the aggregate sources we have been testing has an ASTM C330 compliance from 2009. Our manufacturer said that it is not currently certified but it has been certified in the past although it currently meets ASTM C330.

Could you clarify if our aggregate source can be used since it meets the requirements but does not have an updated test?

RESPONSE: Typically, manufacturers will recertify their materials every couple of years. In this case, the team should request a letter from the manufacturer stating that the 2009 testing is the "most current" and that the material being used in the concrete is the same material.

RFI No. 136 Subject: Section 3.2.1.6 Other Cementitious Materials Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: Referring back to RFI No. 45, the Calcined Agricultural Waste Product (CAWP) we are referencing is Sugarcane Bagasse Ash (SCBA). If a PhD student already conducted the following tests: specific gravity using a helium pycnometer (ASTM D5550), time of set (ASTM C403), and strength development using mortar cubes for SCBA (ASTM C109), but has not yet published their paper, can we still use these values as confirmation that SCBA fulfills the requirements for secondary cementing material (SCM) and use said values for the Technical Addendum Requirements?

RESPONSE: The results can be provided as such and within the design repo you can create a reference noting the student and/or advisor, and topic of dissertation, which should also include "Unpublished".

RFI No. 137 Subject: Section 3.4.4, "Aggregate Samples" Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: Section 3.4.4, “Aggregate Samples,” says that we must have a minimum of 500 milliliters of our aggregates and aggregate blends. Does each 500 milliliter sample have to be in one container, or can we put one specific aggregate into multiple adjacent containers, given that they add up to 500 milliliters in total? Please confirm that in



our display of aggregates and fibers, we may split a single material up into multiple containers, displayed together, as long as they add up to the required amount.

RESPONSE: Teams must provide a minimum of 500 ml of individual aggregates and aggregate blends. For example, if you have three aggregates, and two aggregate blends, then you will have a total of 5 separate samples, 500 ml (min) each.

RFI No. 142 Subject: Equivalent International Standards Posted: 02.17.17

QUESTION: Referred to the answer you giving to the No.96 RFI, our team confirm that our expanded perlite is compliant with JC/T 209‐2012(the Chinese standard of expanded perlite) and the GB/T 17431.1(the Chinese standard of lightweight aggregate in concrete. The two standards together meet the ASTM C330 basically after we compared it with the two Chinese standards.

Is it acceptable that we just attach the two Chinese standards (meet the ASTM C330) mentioned above which only have a version in Chinese since there is no translation given by the authority to certify the ASTM C330 compliance of the expanded perlite we used?

RESPONSE: In this particular case, the use of equivalent international standards would be sufficient; however, the team still needs a letter from the supplier indicating that the material is certified to be in compliance with those two aforementioned standards.

RFI No. 143 Subject: Starvis S 3911 F Posted: 02.17.17

QUESTION: We want to know whether a BASF product is compliant for use in the competition. I've contacted several people at BASF and they were not able to provide me with ASTM information for a product called Starvis S 3911 F as it has not been tested according to any ASTM specification. Starvis is a SAP (super absorbent polymer) product. We intend to use Starvis to help with internal hydration, and thereby, help reduce dry shrinkage.

RESPONSE: This admixture may be used as a rheology modifying admixture (RMA).

RFI No. 144 Subject: Sika Latex‐R Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: Section 3.2.3.4 Polymer Modifiers states, "[Polymer Modifiers] Shall be a latex or re‐dispersible powder formulated for use with hydraulic cements that meets the requirements of ASTM C1438, Type II..."

Is Sika Latex‐R an acceptable material? This material has been used in the past by École de technologie supérieure (ETS) that stated it complied with ASTM C1438, Type II in their design paper. I have contacted the manufacturer whose technical team stated that: "Sika Corporation unfortunately has not done a formal study on SikaLatex‐R acrylic latex admixture and its compliance with ASTM C1438. No in‐house or independent testing has been done. Upon review of ASTM C1438, the 'Standard Specification for Latex and Powder Polymer Modifiers for Hydraulic Cement Concrete and Mortar,' it would be the opinion of Sika Corporation's Technical Services Department that SikaLatex‐R acrylic latex admixture would comply with both Types I and II."

Does our team need to complete its own in‐house testing to confirm compliance with ASTM C1438 or is this other team's and company's statements sufficient?

Section 3 – Concrete & Section 4 ‐ Reinforcement


RESPONSE: Typically it would not be prudent to rely on another team's claim of compliance without having the proper backup for this (as demonstrated by the fact that your technical contact is stating that they cannot certify it as such). However, we did go back to ETS' Engineers Notebook to see what documentation that they had, and while it was written in French, it translated to saying that Sika was "certifying compliance with ASTM C1438." In this case, we will accept Sika Latex‐R as an acceptable, compliant latex for use in this competition.

SECTION 4 – Reinforcement RFI No. 21 Subject: Adhesives on Reinforcement Posted 10.07.16

QUESTION: I read in the rules that we are not allowed to use adhesives as a modifier of the reinforcement. I wanted to clarify, if we use an adhesive to hold our reinforcement together ( we have a spool of carbon fiber that we will create a mesh out of) would this be considered modifying the reinforcement? We will only be placing the adhesive on every spot the vertical thread of carbon fiber meets a horizontal thread.

___|___ | In this above diagram, adhesive would be placed in the center.

RESPONSE: The application of an adhesive to hold strands of fibers together to form a mesh/grid, is considered as "modifying" the material and is not permitted.

RFI No. 34 Subject: DuraFlow® 57‐27 kevlar Posted 10.25.16

QUESTION: Section 4 states that: “the reinforcing materials [should] not have post‐manufacturer applied coatings that enhance the properties of the reinforcement.” Section 4.2 states that: “pre‐preg materials which contain resins are not permitted.”

We are interested in using DuraFlow® 57‐27 kevlar reinforcement. This reinforcement comes coated with PTFE from the manufacturer. We are not adding any additional coatings during placement on the canoe.

Are we permitted to use this reinforcement, given the stipulation in Section 4.2?

RESPONSE: Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, and the best known brand name of PTFE‐based formulas is "Teflon" by Chemours. Since the "as recieved" product from the manufacturer is PTFE‐coated Kevlar, it is permitted. This is not a "pre‐preg" material.

RFI No. 35 SUBJECT: Pre‐Preg Materials Posted 10.26.16

QUESTION: In reference to the reinforcement in Section 4.2: Materials; "Pre‐preg materials which contain resins are not permitted." Does this also mean that the reinforcement fiber mesh cannot contain any percentage of binder material?

We are having trouble finding a reinforcement fiber mesh that does not have any type of resin. It is our understanding that the binder material in the mesh itself does not add any enhancement in resistance, but that it's only purpose is to hold the strands together.

Section 4 ‐ Reinforcement


RESPONSE: “Pre‐preg” are "pre‐impregnated" composite fibers where a matrix material, such as epoxy, is already present and only partially cured to allow easy handling. The application of heat (usually an oven or autoclave) is required to complete polymerization (curing). Tapes, weaves, strips, meshes, etc. of materials that meet this definition are not permitted. Materials that are coated with resins that are fully cured (and are delivered as such) and therefore will not react to heat (including the heat of hydration), are acceptable.

RFI No. 51 Subject: Thickness Requirements Posted 11.15.16

QUESTION: “The sum of all such measured thicknesses divided by the total thickness of the canoe wall or structural element (prior to sealing) at any point in the canoe shall not exceed 50%. “ Our reinforcement is thinner in the walls, and thicker in the bottom part of the canoe. Can the thickness of our walls on the sides be thinner than the bottom as long as we meet the requirement above?

RESPONSE: Yes, the canoe can have variable thicknesses.

RFI No. 55 Subject: Section 4.2 ‐ Reinforcement Materials Posted 11.17.16

QUESTION: "All of the materials serving as the primary reinforcement in the canoe shall have sufficient open space to allow for the mechanical bonding of the concrete composite. The determination of sufficient open space of the reinforcement is measured by percent open area (POA) as defined in Section 4.3.2. Solid mats or plates for reinforcing are not permitted. Pre‐preg materials which contain resins are not permitted"

Please confirm that there are no other compliance requirements (i.e. ASTM specifications) for primary reinforcement other than the POA requirement and prohibition of pre‐preg materials which contain resins.

RESPONSE: There are others. Read the rules as all of the requirements are posted in them.

RFI No. 64 Subject: Geogrid Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: We have been looking into what type of mesh we could put into our concrete canoe. We wanted to make sure that the mesh we have been looking into meets the requirements in the reinforcement section. We were not sure what “ Pre‐preg materials which contain resins are not permitted.” means.

We have been looking into using a Geogrid or a plastic mesh. If they meet the POA 40% requirement, do these reinforcing comply with the “ Pre‐preg materials which contain resins are not permitted.” Rule?

RESPONSE: Please refer to RFI No. 35, Subject: Pre‐Preg Materials, posted 10.26.16, for the definition of these materials. Geogrids and plastic meshes are not pre‐preg materials.

RFI No. 80 Subject: Section 4.0 Reinforcement Posted: 01.24.17

QUESTION: If our concrete has enough fibers to fulfill our tensile stresses, do we have to add a fiberglass mesh and steel cables? Can our canoe not have a mesh and steel cables?

RESPONSE: There are no requirements stating that you must have reinforcement in your canoe.

Section 4 ‐ Reinforcement


RFI No. 82 Subject: C‐Grid CT 275 Posted: 01.24.17

QUESTION: We have spent considerable time identifying a reinforcement fiber mesh that meets the requirements in this years rules. We would like to use C‐Grid CT 275 which has been used by a number of teams in the past. The technical sheet information indicates that it is carbon fiber with epoxy resin. We believe this can be used as the product is fully cured (and delivered as such) and does not require heat to complete curing (consistent with RFI No. 35). Is this correct?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is correct. The product is not a "pre‐preg" material.

RFI No. 108 Subject: C‐Grid CT 275 Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: We are considering using C‐Grid CT275 from Chomarat North America as reinforcement; however, they apply an epoxy coating to their finished product. Does the use of this epoxy coating prohibit the use of this C‐Grid in regards to the CNCCC Intent part c) the reinforcing material do not have post‐manufacturer applied coatings that enhance the properties of the reinforcement?

RESPONSE: See RFI No. 82, Subject: C‐Grid CT 275. posted 01.24.17

RFI No. 113 Subject: Section 2.2 Concrete and Reinforcement and Section 4.2 Reinforcement materials Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Per section 2.2 "All materials which are not part of a concrete mixture, with the exception of materials that are used for flotation, shall be classified as a reinforcing material and shall comply with all the specifications presented in section 4 ‐ REINFORCEMENT" Then per section 4.2 "All of the materials serving as the primary reinforcement in the canoe shall have sufficient open space to allow for the mechanical bonding of the concrete composite. The determination of sufficient open space of the reinforcement is measured by percent open area as defined in section 4.3.2. Solid mats or plates for reinforcing are not permitted...Solid mats and plates are described as reinforcing materials that require additional bonding agents or post‐manufacturer perforations to keep the reinforcing from delaminating from the concrete composite (i.e., there is a lack of open space between the reinforcement sufficient for mechanical bonding to the concrete composite)"

Our team would like to prestress our canoe to lower the tensile stresses in our canoe. This prestressing process involves using anchoring brackets/plates, washers, ferrules, and steel cables. The brackets we are using are relatively thick, tall, and wide so they will be strong enough to withstand the prestressing force. Per section 2.2 these would be considered reinforcing material. We know that teams in the past have prestressed their canoe, but wanted clarification in the rules. Our question is are these items considered reinforcing material and if so does that mean they must comply with section 4.2. Meaning do our anchoring brackets have to meet a POA of 40%? Further, are these brackets considered plates which wouldn't be permitted? If these brackets are suitable for use are there any limitations on the dimensions they can be. We plan on modifying a U bracket (image attached) for use as an anchoring plate having dimensions roughly around 8in tall by 3in wide by 1/8in thickness. Our only holes in the bracket would be where our 6 steel cables would connect. Is using a bracket, 1/16" steel cables, washers, and ferrules in this way compliant with the rules?

RESPONSE: The intent behind the solid mats/plates is meant to cover large solid plates covering the length of the canoe that would be used in lieu of a reinforcing mesh. Many teams use some kind of metal plate as a "bearing plate" to anchor their tendons to. A lot of the time, these are not actually encased in concrete, but rather bear against concrete on one side, and then are initially open on the other side where the cables terminate in the bow and stern of

Section 4 – Reinforcement & Section 5 – Finishing


the canoe. Then teams will place foam (flotation) around the bare end of the cables and plate and encase the foam in concrete to use as their bulkheads for flotation.

As such, these are allowed and are not bound by the POA requirement.

RFI No. 120 Subject: Section 4.2 Materials Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: We plan on using steel wires to tie down our carbon fiber to our steel prestressing tension cables for spacing purposes during casting. In the rules it states, "solid mats and plates are described as reinforcing materials that require additional bonding agents or post‐manufacturer perforations to keep the reinforcement from delaminating from the concrete composite" and the steel tie down wire is not a solid mat nor a plate and will be in compliance with the percent open area requirement. Is this permitted?

RESPONSE: Tie wires are permitted.

RFI No. 153 Subject: Reinforcement Posted: 02.21.19

QUESTION: Section 4.4.2 Reinforcement samples states that "A 12 in. x 12 in. (min.) square sample of each reinforcement material used in the canoe shall be made available for compliance checking as part of the product display." We are using a particular reinforcement around the ribs of our canoe that comes in a 3" wide roll of reinforcement. Since this reinforcement does not come in a larger sheet, is it acceptable to provide a representative sample of 12" long by 3" wide?

RESPONSE: Yes, this would be fine.

SECTION 5 – Finishing RFI No. 3 Subject: Section 5.2 ‐ Lettering Posted 09.13.16

QUESTION: There are no regulations in Section 5.2 – Lettering (or anywhere else in the 2017 Rules and Regulations) regarding the canoe name. Please confirm that our canoe name may be in another language.

RESPONSE: As long as you are in compliance with the lettering heights specified in Section 5.2, the canoe name may be in another language or alphabet for that matter.

RFI No. 6 Subject: Section 5.0, General Posted 09.14.16

QUESTION: Can gold leaf (Commercially purchased 85% Copper, 15% Zinc thin foil sheet) be used on the exterior of the canoe for finishing purposes? The gold leaf will be used to place on small areas on the outside of the canoe after sanding and finishing for aesthetic purposes.

RESPONSE: The use as proposed is not allowed. However, It could be used for the lettering (Refer to Section 5.4 ADHESIVE APPLIQUÉS).

Section 5 – Finishing


RFI No. 8 Subject: Section 5.0 Regarding the Use of Glitter/Glass Posted 09.19.16

QUESTION: Is the use of craft glitter or the use of broken stained glass in or on the surface of an already placed concrete mix permitted?

RESPONSE: Embedding or adhering materials (other than adhesive appliques for lettering purposes only) is not permitted.

RFI No. 17 Subject: Section 5.0, General Posted 09.28.16

QUESTION: Are we able to place for example a 1"x1"x1" concrete block in our Styrofoam male mold and leave it in there? The block would be in our male mold while we cast the rest of the concrete over the block and once demolded, the block will be showing as a 3‐D inlay inside the canoe. The block will be for aesthetic purposes. We ask this question in regards to RFI No. 8 you posted on Facebook stating that," Embedding or adhering materials (other than adhesive appliques for lettering purposes only) is not permitted."

RESPONSE: RFI No. 8 (posted 09.19.16) was referring to the embedment of non‐concrete materials (such as glass,

glitter, plastic, etc.) into concrete freshly placed on the mold. As long as the material is a concrete in compliance with

the Rules and Regulations, it may be used.

RFI No. 56 Subject: Section 5.6 CONCRETE SEALERS Posted 11.30.16

QUESTION: Per Section 5.6 CONCRETE SEALERS, only clear, non‐pigmented concrete sealers (penetrating or surface coating) may be applied to any portion of the canoe at the discretion of the team. If a sealer is not clear at the application (pale yellow) but become perfectly clear after drying, can I used it on my canoe legally.

RESPONSE: This is still considered a clear sealer (the pale yellow color is not from pigmentation) and is acceptable.

RFI No. 66 Subject: DurMax Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: We wish to inquire about a product we would like to use this year as a sealer, DurMax (product data sheet is attached). Is this an acceptable product?

REPONSE: DurMax does not meet the specifications for sealers as outlined in the Rules and Regulations.

RFI No. 69 Subject: Section 5.2, Lettering Posted 01.04.17

QUESTION: In reference to section 5.2 in the rules and RFI No. 3 posted on 9‐13‐2016, we are allowed to use different languages or alphabets in our canoe name. May the name on one side of the canoe be in a different alphabet than the other side of the canoe? The name would be the same, but be in a different alphabet. If this is allowed, would we have to reference both versions of the name in the Design Paper?

RESPONSE: This would be allowed. There would be no requirement to include both versions in the Design Paper, however, it may make sense to include it.



RFI No. 70 Subject: Biocrete Posted 01.04.17

QUESTION: Is the use of "biocrete" permitted to use as a very thin layer on the outside of the canoe? In order to create it, we use water as a cultured medium containing bacteria that helps the concrete self‐heal if cracked. This self‐healing comes from the bacterial precipitate.

RESPONSE: This material would not be in compliance with the Rules and Regulations as they pertain to sealers and therefore would not be permitted.

RFI No. 76 Subject: Section 5.5 ‐ Concrete Stains and Paints Posted: 01.20.17

QUESTION: When interpreting the rule stated in Section 5.5, is it to be read that no paint is allowed, or is it stating that concrete stains and concrete paints are strictly prohibited? Also with this, would a liquid concrete permanent marker fall under the regulations of the concrete paints, or with it being branded as a permanent marker set it outside the limits of these rulings?

RESPONSE: The correct interpretation is that stains and paints are not permitted (basically anything that coats the surface and colors the concrete is prohibited; clear sealers are permitted). Permanent marker falls under this definition as well.

RFI No. 81 Subject: Section 5.2 ‐ Lettering Posted: 01.24.17

QUESTION: According to Section 5.2, there is no limitation regarding the font:

"The school name shall consist of letters 5” ± 1/2” high; the canoe name shall consist of letters 4” ± 1/2” high. Letter height includes any outlines, shadows, ascenders and descenders, etc., used and may vary as long as it is within the specified range. Both upper and lower case letters may be used" (25).

Please see the attached image to clarify if the following letter placement is acceptable.

RESPONSE: As long as the INDIVIDUAL letters meet the requirements as specified, it would be allowed.

RFI No. 104 Subject: Pentra‐Sil Posted 02.02.17

QUESTION: We are wanting to use a surface applied lithium silicate as a densifier on our canoe. To be exact, the applicant is called Pentra‐Sil, produced by Convergent Concrete.

Would we be allowed to use Pentra‐Sil as one of our 2 coats of curing/sealing compounds? We didn't see anything in the rules that prohibited the use of a lithium silicate surface applicant.

RESPONSE: Based on review of the product data sheet, the product meets the requirements stipulated in Section 5.6.b. of the Rules and Regulations.



RFI No. 116 Subject: Concrete Canoe Finishing Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: We are reaching to determine the types of paints and finishings we can use for our canoe design. The concrete canoe rules and regulations for this year specify no concrete stains or paint. What are the recommended paints and stains that qualify and meet the requirements for the 2017 rules?

RESPONSE: Section 5.5, CONCRETE STAINS AND PAINTS, states that "The use of concrete stains and paints of any kind is strictly prohibited." This covers all stains and paints.

RFI No. 139 Subject: Section 5.2 Lettering Posted: 02.16.17

QUESTION: "The canoe name shall consist of letters 4" +/‐ 1/2" high. Letter height includes any outlines, shadows, ascenders, and descenders, etc., used and may vary as long as it is within the specified range." Our canoe name has an accent in it and we want to clarify that it is okay to use this in the lettering? Is this accent allowed to be 4" +/‐ 1/2" high or is it the letter combined with the accent that must meet 4" +/‐ 1/2"?

RESPONSE: The use of accents is permitted. The combination of letter and accent above (or below) it shall fall within the permitted range. For example, È ë õ ą . If you have an apostrophe, like CNCCC's, then it will automatically fall within the range as it would be proportional to the letters themselves.

RFI No. 140 Subject: Section 5.3, Graphics Posted: 02.16.17

QUESTION: Our team sent an inquiry to a pigment company about ways in which to use pigment decoratively. They stated the following:

"As a decorative color option, Concrete Dye is comprised of concrete pigment and acrylic binder. Acetone is the delivery system that also server to emulsify the acrylic. Once sprayed onto the surface, the acetone off‐gases completely leaving only pigment behind that is held onto surface by the acrylic binder. Once applied, allow to off gas for 1 hour then seal."

We were unsure if emulsifying concrete dye for the naming of the canoe was in accordance with other rules. To further the point, we weren't sure if the same method would be in compliance with the rules if used for graphics on the canoe as well. The acrylic binder gases off and it wouldn't be in the final product of the canoe. If solely using pigment is an issue, would it be possible to use concrete and emulsify it as well.

RESPONSE: Per Section 5.3, GRAPHICS, "Graphics such as logos, symbols, etc. created using concrete coloring agents and pigments within the concrete mix design (i.e., integrally colored concrete) are not limited in dimension or frequency. Letters for canoe and school names that may be created using coloring agents and pigments are limited to the sizes outlined in Section 5.2. Any coloring agents or pigments used shall be in accordance with ASTM C979."

Based on the RFI, it appears that you are looking to spray on a concrete dye that has acetone and an acrylic binder onto the concrete surface. This is not allowed as it is not "integrally colored concrete." The lettering that is mentioned in this section as well, would need to integrally colored. The intent of the language here is to say that the size of the letters for the school and canoe names must be in the range whether you use colored concrete or adhesive appliques.

Section 6 – Design Paper


SECTION 6 – Design Paper RFI No. 28 Subject: Section 6.2.2.j, Project Schedule Posted 10.21.16

QUESTION: In Section 6.2.2, Part (j) states “Include a project schedule which depicts planned and actual execution dates for all major activities and milestones and clearly denote all activities on the Critical Path. At the NCCC, judges will compare the schedule submitted on November 1, 2016, to the one submitted in the paper.”

On the webinar offered on October 4 (Fundamentals of Project Scheduling and the Critical Path Method for Students), it was explained that the schedule to be submitted on November 1 it is not a Gantt chart of the schedule, but a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in list or diagram format.

1) Following the Critical Path Method (CPM), is the schedule to be submitted on November 1 and the paper an activity list, bar chart, and/or a network diagram to clearly denote the Critical Path of our project?

2) If the Project Schedule to be submitted is a Work Breakdown Structure, then there is no need to submit a Gantt Chart.

RESPONSE: The Rule and Regulations state "Include a project schedule which depicts planned and actual execution dates for all major activities and milestones and clearly denote all activities on the Critical Path." We will point out that this has been part of the design paper for many years. The new facet to this year’s competition is that teams will submit their initial (baseline, preliminary) schedule to the CNCCC by November 1. With the design papers (at conference and national competitions), the project schedule should have the initial and actual schedules on it.

A project schedule created using the Critical Path Method is to be submitted by November 1. The Work Breakdown Structure is to be used to develop the required activities and tasks for each activity that are then used to create the overall schedule (typically, a Gantt Chart) and identify the critical path using recommended programs, like MS Project.

RFI No. 38 Subject: Section 6.2.2 Format Posted 10.27.16

QUESTION: In Section 6.2.2 Item J: Project Schedule states "Include a project schedule which depicts planned and actual execution dates for all major activities". Does this apply to the preliminary schedule that is due November 1 or the schedule submitted in the design paper? Should the preliminary schedule have the actual dates that have occurred thus far and have empty spots for the future dates that will occur in between now and our respective regional conference? Or should the preliminary schedule show only the baseline start and finish dates?

RESPONSE: The planned (i.e., preliminary) schedule that is to be submitted November 1 would be the same planned schedule that is in the report. The schedule being submitted by November 1 should only have the baseline start and finish dates (duration); actual progress up to date of the submission should not be included.

RFI No. 54 Subject: 6.2 DESIGN PAPER l. Appendix A – References

QUESTION: Our question is whether or not the technical addendum (formerly the engineers notebook) can be used as a reference throughout the Design Paper. We understand it is a supporting document, however its vague in the rules if it is allowed to be cited because it is not a past design report or industry standard. So, due to the limiting nature of the specified page structure in the rules and regulations for 2017, we are hoping to actively cite and reference the technical addendum from this year in the design report itself. Is this within the rules and regulations or prohibited?

RESPONSE: Section 6.2.l. states that “Past design reports, ASTM and other industry standards and published material, shall be cited and properly referenced.” The term “published material” can cover a wide range of documents, such as,



but not limited to, textbooks, journals, websites, etc. Technically, unpublished material can be cited as well. The Project Overview and Technical Addendum would fall under “published material.”

RFI No. 63 Subject: Section 6.2.2 g) Design Paper, Format, Hull Design and Structural Analysis Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: From 6.2.2.g. "The structural analysis conducted by the teams is to be limited to 2‐D analysis only," so no, 3‐D analysis, even with Excel, is allowed.

RESPONSE: That is the correct interpretation.

RFI No. 71 Subject: Section 6.2.2 g) Design Paper, Format, Hull Design and Structural Analysis Posted 01.04.17

QUESTION: In the Rules and Regulations, it is stated that it is not allowed to use advanced computer programs to perform a 3‐D analysis. However, we are allowed to use a simple mathematical tool like Excel to perform simple repetitive calculations. Could we use an Excel spreadsheet in a 3‐D analysis, without any use of a specialized computer program?

RESPONSE: Section 6.2.2.g. states that "The structural analysis conducted by the teams is to be limited to 2‐D analysis only," therefore 3‐D analysis, even with Excel, is not allowed.

RFI No. 86 Subject: Number and Type of Submittals Posted: 01.25.17

QUESTION: Do you want hard copies of the Design Paper and Project Overview and Technical Addendum mailed or only hardcopies of the Design Paper and NOT the Project Overview and Technical Addendum?

RESPONSE: Teams should only be submitting hard copies of the Design Paper, and electronic copies of the Design Paper and the Project Overview and Technical Addendum.

Section 6.3.2 states: "For the Conference Competitions, each school shall provide five (5) bound copies of the Design Paper by the specified deadline. Electronic copies of the Design Paper and Project Overview & Technical Addendum, in the formats listed below, are also to be provided by the deadline. The electronic copy of the Design Paper and Project Overview & Technical Addendum shall be provided as separate documents in PDF format. [...]"

Host schools are not permitted to change the requirements for submitting hard and/or electronics copies of the Design Paper and Project Overview and Technical Addendum."

Again, the deadline is set by the conference host school, not the CNCCC.

RFI No. 95 Subject: Protective Plastic Cover for Report Posted: 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.a “protective plastic cover” is permitted in front/top of the report. Would a protective plastic cover also be permitted at the back/bottom of the report ?

RESPONSE: This would be acceptable.



RFI No. 99 Subject: Section 6.2.2 g. Hull Design and Structural Analysis Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per Section 6.2.2 g. Hull Design and Structural Analysis, if applicable, discuss how requirements for bulkheads, thwarts, ribs, or other structural elements are determined. Can you please specify “requirements”. For instance, i think that the ”requirements” for ribs could be “position”, ”quantity”, ”dimension”, etc. How about bulkheads, thwarts?

RESPONSE: The intent of "discuss how the requirements" are determined is for the teams to discuss how they came to the conclusion in their analysis that their canoe needed to have ribs, for example. The discussion can include position, quantity, dimensions, etc of the structural elements.

For example, during a team's initial analysis of the canoe, they came to XYZ conclusion and determined in order to increase the moment capacity or the strength of XYZ, they needed to add ribs at ABC locations because this is where the high stress locations are, etc.

RFI No. 101 Subject: Section 6.2.2 n. Appendix C Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: Per Section 6.2.2 n. Appendix C, consider the stands as point loads with the canoe right side up. Does “right side up” mean that the inside surface is set towards ground? Can the part of “Example Structural calculation” be showed by handwriting? If not, the format of this part (font type and size, etc.) is the same as other part?

RESPONSE: Right side up is having the canoe on stands as if it were floating in water (bottom of canoe facing the ground).

In regards to the Example Structural Calculation, the rules do not specify text size/format requirements for the appendices. The calculations can be either typed or handwritten, or a combination of the two.

RFI No. 106 Subject: Section 6.2.2c & 7.1.2c Posted 02.07.17

QUESTION: Per Section 6.2.2c & 7.1.2c, the executive summary of the paper and Compliance Certificate asks for certain mixture proportions for each mix. Regarding concrete composite flexural strength, can you please clarify what it being defined as the concrete composite? Would this be considered the flexural strength of each respective mix, or for mixes that have secondary reinforcement? If not, is this defined as the concrete and primary reinforcement composite, in which case a finishing mix not integrally cast with reinforcement would not have an associated composite flexural strength.

RESPONSE: In general, the composite would be the reinforced concrete section (the concrete has the secondary reinforcement, i.e., the fibers, already in it are part of the concrete mixture, and then reinforced with your primary reinforcement scheme). Teams can provide flexural strengths of just their concrete mixtures (should include the fibers if that is part of design) and then a composite flexural strength of a typical reinforced section. Just denote it as such.

RFI No. 107 Subject: Budget Posted 02.07.17

QUESTION: For the budget in the project management section under 6.2.2.D, we were wondering if we needed to include items in the budget that were reused from last year? For example, we are reusing a fiberglass mold from last year and were wondering if it needs to be included in this year's budget numbers?



RESPONSE: If items are reused, teams should still include the budgetary numbers from previous years and cite it as such. You can then indicate what savings you have in regards to their reuse.

RFI No. 110 Subject: 3D Fluid Dynamic Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Would be alright for us to run a 3D CFD analysis on a fluid dynamic element of our canoe? It would in no way affect the structural analysis, which would still be done in 2D.

RESPONSE: If the 3D analysis is being used for the purpose of designing the hull from a naval architectural standpoint (to determine the length, width, rocker, cross‐sectional shape, etc.) then it is permitted. The rules prohibit the use of advanced computations methods for the structural analysis of the canoe.

RFI No. 119 Subject: Section 6.2.2n, Appendix C – Example Structural Calculation Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: "Use non‐transformed cross‐sectional properties (i.e., neglect the use of reinforcement and the ratio of concrete‐to‐reinforcement moduli). The cross‐section that is to be analyzed is at the point of maximum moment under this loading condition."

Our concrete in tension virtually has no strength, the tension is all carried by the reinforcement. The results will not reflect our canoe's actual properties. Does this mean to neglect reinforcement when finding the Neutral axis?

RESPONSE: The intent of the Example Structural Calculation is to determine the internal stresses in the canoe and to simplify the process for all the teams, the non‐transformed section is to be used. This way, no strength properties (which would then be used in determining moduli) would be required, as it would simply be based on geometry. So, you will neglect the reinforcement in determining N.A.

RFI No. 122 Subject: Section 6.2.1 Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTIONS: Do figures and tables in the body of the text have to be 12 point font? We have some figures and tables that when sized to fit, the text became smaller than 12 point font.

RESPONSE: Only the captions of photographs, tables, line drawings, graphs, headers and footers shall be no less than 8 point, normal width, and any legible font type. Text within said photographs, tables, etc. can be any size and font as long as legible.

RFI No. 123 Subject: Subject: 6.2.2 n. Appendix C Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: Consider the stands as point loads with the canoe right side up. According to your response the last time, the canoe should calculate in the simply‐supported case that canoe’s bottom faces ground. Does that mean we must show the canoe in the display following the above situation? Can we let inside surface face the ground for showing the outside surface when displaying?

RESPONSE: The canoe can be displayed however the team wants (as long as it adheres to the display rules). The display of the canoe does not need to mimic the analysis case. The case is standardized for comparative purposes between other schools.



RFI No. 124 Subject: Section 6.2.2 n. Appendix C Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: Compare the results of the analysis of this particular scenario to the results of the analyses performed under the various scenarios. Could you please specify the “results”? What results should we show and compare at least?

RESPONSE: The results from the structural analysis (6.2.2g) should be compared with the results from the "hand calculation" case. Things that might be considered are internal stresses, maximum shear, maximum moment, etc. Teams may compare the values from the other scenarios to the one that is being asked to be modeled in the example calculation.

RFI No. 126 Subject: Section 6.2.2 n. Appendix C Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: At a minimum, the following shall be provided in the calculation: ……. And their respective measurements. Could you please specify “measurements”? Our canoe was divided into 20 sections, does that mean we need to give the accurate results of every sections’ point and distributed loads or we just show the formulation?

RESPONSE: The applicable measurements are the measurements related to the relevant loads in the team's calculation. This is so the reader can locate where along the length of the canoe each assumed load is at. For example, if the team has an assumed point load at the 1/3 and 2/3 points along the canoe length, the measurement/distance from each end of the canoe or between each load should be shown.

RFI No. 127 Subject: Section 6.2 Design Paper Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: Does the paper have to be single sided of text or can we print on both sides?

RESPONSE: Per Section 6.2.1, “The hard copy of the report shall consist of a single‐sided report cover, single‐sided pages for the body and appendices, and a back cover. A protective plastic cover in front of the report cover is permitted.”

RFI No. 128 Subject: Moment of Inertia Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: Section 6.2.2 n. states “At a minimum, the following shall be provided in the calculation: list of all assumptions (cite references as applicable), free body diagram with all relevant point and distributed loads (canoe weight, etc.) and their respective measurements, resulting shear (V) and bending moment (M) diagrams, cross‐sectional properties including applicable dimensions, moments of inertia, and location of the neutral axis, and values of the internal stresses based on the principles of the mechanics of materials.”

Would we need to show how we calculated the moment of inertia or would we be able to make the assumption that computer software was able to calculate it for us and consider it as an input instead?

RESPONSE: Show how the moment of inertia of the one cross‐section is computed (even it is a simplified version of the actual cross‐section).



RFI No. 129 Subject: Section 6.2.1 General Requirements Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: We have two questions regarding the design paper. It states that ,"Items such as page numbers, logos, images/designs, section headings, etc. may be incorporated into the header and footer of the pages and are not subject to the font requirements" and "All pages of the report, including the organization chart, project schedule, construction drawing, and appendices shall maintain a minimum of 1⁄2” margins on all sides".

1) We were planning on designing a patterned header. Are their size parameters on how big can the header and footer can be? For example can the header be 8.5" x 1"? 2) Does the top margin apply to the distance to the header or the top of the page that needs to be 1/2"?

RESPONSE: 1) Margins are to be a minimum of ½ inch. Therefore you can have them be larger and the header and footer would be contained within your margin. 2) The margins are measured from the edges of the paper, so the top margin is from the top of the paper.

RFI No. 132 Subject: Preliminary vs. Final Schedule Posted: 02.14.17

QUESTION: Section 6.2.2 Format part j states "Include a project schedule which depicts planned and actual execution dates for all major activities and milestones and clearly denote all activities on the critical path." According to RFI 38 the response said that the prelim schedule submitted on Nov 1st is the same that will be shown in the design paper.

Our team would like to clarify if the prelim schedule can be any different than the one submitted on Nov 1st. Soon after that preliminary schedule deadline our team had to move our placing day by about a month due to un‐foreseen circumstances. This move drastically changed our schedule as items such as finishing had to get moved back. If our team uses the schedule that was due on Nov 1st alongside our actual schedule it won't accurately represent our updated schedule. According to the scheduling seminar, it is okay and common to change your schedule throughout the process. What is the appropriate preliminary schedule to include with the actual schedule in the design paper?

Also, is the schedule submitted in the design paper allowed to be in a different format and color scheme than what was submitted for the preliminary schedule?

RESPONSE: The schedule that should be provided in the Design Report should include both the initial schedule, with it's milestones, durations, etc. (as submitted by November 1, 2016), and the actual schedule. The initial, or preliminary, schedule should not be modified or "updated." The purpose is to show what you had planned to what actually occurred.

In regards to format, color scheme, etc. teams can submit schedules with a different look.

RFI No. 134 Subject: Page Borders Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: "Items such as page numbers, logos, images/designs, section headings, etc. may be incorporated into the header and footer of the pages and are not subject to the font requirements of the body text. The header and footer may be located within the margin itself (i.e., outside of the body text limits)"

Does this mean that a page border located within the margins (on all four sides, not just in the header and footer) would be acceptable?

RESPONSE: Yes.



RFI No. 135 Subject: Section 6.2.2 j. Schedule Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: Section 6.2.2.j. states: "Include a project schedule which depicts planned and actual execution dates for all major activities and milestones and clearly denote all activities on the Critical Path."

For the schedule that is to be included in the Design Paper for the Regional Competition, if some of the actual dates will not be completed before the team mails the paper to the conference are we allowed to leave the actual dates blank or should we put our estimated date?

RESPONSE: The schedule that is provided in the report should reflect the actual dates, up to the time of the submittal of said report. Dates beyond that should not be included (i.e., no new estimated dates on the schedule itself). For Conference Competitions it is generally understood that submissions of documents are submitted prior to actual completion dates, and the judges take that into consideration.

RFI No. 138 Subject: Section 6.2.2.g Posted: 02.15.17

QUESTION: Are we able to use AutoCAD to get an exact cross sectional area for our analysis? For example, we would use two cross sectional areas from AutoCAD to hand calculate an estimated volume (no finite element software has been used).

RESPONSE: Yes. With that said, for the example calculation, you should show the calculation for the cross‐section area (even if it is an approximation, just note it as such)

RFI No. 146 Subject: Section 6.6.6.k, Construction Drawing Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: This section states that “The drawing shall show isometric, elevation, plan, and typical composite cross‐section views of the canoe (not the mold)”. Is isometric plan allowed to show the construction details of each layer, which means the canoe may not be shown completely?

RESPONSE: This would be acceptable.

RFI No. 151 Subject: Schedule Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: The response to RFI 132 states both the initial schedule and the actual schedule should be included in the Design Report. Section 6.2.2j. indicates the schedule shall be on Page 11. Does this mean we have to fit 2 separate schedules on 1 page? Or should they be on separate pages?

RESPONSE: There should only be 1 page which has both the initial dates and actual dates on the schedule.

RFI No. 154 Subject: Formatting Deductions Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: Section 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 states "The electronic submission shall be considered the official and final version of both the Design Paper and Project Overview and Technical Addendum." Does this mean any formatting

Section 6 – Design Paper & Section 7 – Project Overview and Technical Addendum


requirements such as an additional blank page single/double sided paper, etc that would only apply to the hard copy of the Design Paper cannot receive a deduction?

RESPONSE: Some formatting items, which can only be applied to hard copies, of the design papers can still be subject to these deductions.

RFI No. 155 Subject: Technical Software Posted: 02.21.19

QUESTION: In 6.1 References, the rules state: "In addition, please include references for technical software." What is considered "technical software"? Does Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint fall into this category? Adobe In Design or other Adobe products? Matlab? Maxsurf? DELFTship? etc. The link provided in Section 6.1 to the ASCE Library for "Permission Basics" and "Author‐Date References" makes no mention of referencing software, nor how to cite software. How should software be cited?

RESPONSE: The technical software would those that were used in the development of the hull (such as, but not limited to, MaxSurf, DELFTship, Michelet, Nautilus, even AutoCAD). Programs used for scheduling and structural analysis can also be cited. Programs used for word processing, presentations, and such, do not need to be referenced. The programs would have the name, version (year), and developer; most programs have a technical manual that goes along with them, so you could reference that document. as well, if need be.

SECTION 7 – Project Overview and Technical Addendum RFI No. 4 Subject: Section 7.1.2 Format Posted 09.13.16

QUESTION: Subsection (d) of Section 7.1.2 requires “At least eight (8) [photos] of mold construction showing the fabrication of cross sections, assembly of the mold, and the application of any coatings prior to canoe construction.” The cross sections we plan to use for our canoe mold were fabricated in 2014 (we plan to replicate the hull design of a previous canoe). May we include these photos taken in 2014 as part of the required eight for this section?

RESPONSE: It is understood that in some instances, such as reusing a mold from a previous year, that older photographs may be used to show construction. Such photographs can be used and their caption should cite the year that it was taken.

RFI No. 85 Subject: POTA Posted: 01.25.17

QUESTION: When considering the Technical Addendum, we will not be able to add a picture of the final canoe since it will still be in the curing process, can we add to the hardcopy of the Technical Addendum during display in the day of the competition?

RESPONSE: In regards to Section 7.1.2.d, photos for the "finishing techniques depicting any sanding/patching and the application of sealer and/or graphics" may have "place holders" (blank space with text indicating a place holder) for activities that may not have taken place prior to submission of the Design Paper and Project Overview and Technical Addendum. However, these place holders should be replaced with pictures in the hard copy at the competition.

It is generally understood that for the conference competitions, the submittal of the design paper, etc. is typically done before the canoe is completed. Judges are made aware of this by the CNCCC.

Section 7 – Project Overview and Technical Addendum


RFI No. 92 Subject: Section 7.1.2.d.3, "How To" Finishing Techniques Posted: 01.30.17

QUESTION: In the Project Overview and Technical Addendum we are required to include "at least (8) [pictures] of finishing techniques depicting any sanding/patching and the application of sealer and/or graphics." However, at the time of submission, our canoe will still be curing. Will it be okay to use pictures taken from the previous year which show the sanding/sealing process we plan to use? If not, will pictures depicting what we plan to do, but will not have done by the paper submission deadline, be sufficient to meet this requirement?

RESPONSE: Teams may use stock photos in cases such as this. The team should properly cite the year of the photograph. You may also earmark photos (leave the space blank, but indicate what will be in the hardcopy of the POTA). Conference judges are instructed to take the fact that deadlines for submission at the conference level are before the actual completion date of the canoe.

RFI No. 131 Subject: Electronic Submission of POTA Posted: 02.14.17

QUESTION: Section 7.1.1 states that "Each team shall provide one (1) hard copy of the Project Overview and Technical Addendum..." and "For the National Competitions, each school shall provide electronic copies of the Project Overview and Technical Addendum."

Please confirm that an electronic copy of the Project Overview and Technical Addendum is not required to be submitted for the Regional Conference.

RESPONSE: Under Section 6.3, Submissions, 6.3.2 Conference Competition states "Electronic copies of the Design Paper and Project Overview & Technical Addendum, in the formats listed below, are also to be provided by the deadline." Both Design Paper and POTA shall be submitted prior to the deadline given by the host school.

RFI No. 148 Subject: Section 7.1.2.d.3, “How To” Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: In this section we are required to include “at least eight (8) [pictures] of canoe construction” and “at least eight (8) [pictures] of finishing techniques”. Which part do the curing and removal pictures belong to? In addition, our team placed the flotation after removal process. If the curing and removal pictures are classified as finishing technique, could we place the pictures not in chronological order? In other words, could we place the flotation placement pictures in canoe construction part and place curing/removal pictures in finishing techniques part?

RESPONSE: Curing and form removal is part of the construction process. Bulkhead construction (flotation) is part of the construction process as well.

RFI No. 150 Subject: Missing MTDS Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: What if we have not finalized all our materials by the time the electronic submissions for the regional conference are due? For example, if we do not purchase our sealer or other materials until after the electronic submission, will we get penalized for not having the MTDS in the electronic version of the POTA? Is it allowed to include the later MTDS sheets in the hardcopy and not in the electronic version? If so, should we leave a placeholder?

Section 7 – Project Overview and Technical Addendum & Section 8 – Oral Presentation


RESPONSE: If there is truly a need to leave a MTDS blank, then yes, put a placeholder in there and make sure the hard copy has the actual MTDS at the regional conference. We would note that at this point in the game, teams really should know what products they are planning to use.

RFI No. 152 Subject: SDS Posted: 02.21.19

QUESTION: If a MTDS does not demonstrate material, admixture, or sealer compliance, but the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) does, can the SDS supplement the MTDS in the POTA? For example, if the SDS for a sealer shows the solids content, can this be included?

RESPONSE: Yes, the SDS can supplement, but the MTDS should also be included.

SECTION 8 – Oral Presentation RFI No. 18 Subject: Section 8.1, Equipment Posted 09.28.16

QUESTION: This section states that the host school is to provide two projection screens for use during the oral presentation. We, MSOE, are hosting this year for the Great Lakes Regional Conference and we were wondering if we have to provide two screens? We currently only have access to one and we wanted to know if providing only one, that is centered in the room, is okay.

RESPONSE: As long as the screen is large enough to accommodate two projectors to adequately project on it, then it

would be acceptable.

RFI No. 98 Subject: Host School Requirements for the Canoe Oral Presentation Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: We are hosting our ASCE Student Conference competition this year and I have a couple of questions about the oral presentations.

Section 8.1 states that “The host school shall provide two (2) grounded power plugs, two (2) projection screens, and a computer projection unit for general use during the oral presentation.” Does this mean we need two projector units (one for each screen)? What is the purpose of the second screen? Also, can we ask schools to provide their PowerPoints in advance for loading on a computer, or do we have to allow them to plug in their own laptops to the projector?

RESPONSE: Only one projector unit needs to be provided by the host school. The host school can provide a 2nd projector if they want, but are not required to (they should inform the teams what they will provide). The 2nd screen allows schools to bring an additional projector if they want to show something on a 2nd screen.

There are no rules about how the host school manages the projector and use of a host school computer. Participants should be allowed to use their own computer with the projector if they want as there is no requirement that presentations are in PowerPoint format and they may be using other software.

Section 9 – Final Product (Canoe and Cutaway Section)


SECTION 9 – Final Product (Canoe and Cutaway Section) RFI No. 25 Subject: Section 9.1.1 Display Stands Posted 10.14.16

QUESTION; Per Section 9.1.1, “For aesthetics judging, all canoes shall be assembled in a common area. Canoes shall be displayed on display stands designed to support the canoe at a height of 2.5 to 4 feet below the canoe. No lighting, sound, or canopies shall be permitted at the time of judging.”

What is considered canopies? If parts of the display stands get higher than the canoe or pass partially over it, is it considered a canopy? Are there any limitations on the dimensions of the display stands other than the space under the canoe?

RESPONSE: There are no other dimensional constraints on the display stands other than the clear distance from the bottom. Canopies are simply an overhead roof or else a structure over which a fabric or metal covering is attached, able to provide shade or shelter from weather conditions. At the time of judging, canoes should not be under canopies.

RFI No. 32 Subject: Canoe Stands Posted 10.24.16

QUESTION: Do the canoe stands hold aesthetics values for the final product display points? 9.1.1 General Requirements, “For aesthetics judging, all canoes shall be assembled in a common area. Canoes shall be displayed on display stands designed to support the canoe at a height of 2.5 to 4 feet.”

RESPONSE: No. Teams are not assessed points for the final product based on the stands that they are supported by.

RFI No. 33 Subject: Section 9.3 Cutaway Section Posted 10.24.16

QUESTION: "No artistic enhancements are permitted....An "artistic enhancement" is basically anything that makes the canoe and mold look something other than the canoe or mold. This does not apply to any stand the cross section rests on, which can be decorative, theme‐related, etc." It says that no artistically enhancements are permitted to the cutaway section. However, are we allowed to choose a different color of the concrete on the cutaway section so that it may help reinforce the theme? The color of the concrete on the cutaway section is not the color used in the actual canoe. The color of the pigment is the only change in the mix design.

RESPONSE: Section 9.3 also states that “This means the cutaway cross‐section should look as if the finished product could be placed back onto the mold it was cast on, then took a saw to it and cut out a section that was long enough, and then stripped or peeled back layers exposing the stages of construction.” If a team uses a color on the cross section that is not on the actual final product, then it is not fully representative of the canoe, therefore, it is not permitted.

RFI No. 67 Subject: Section 9.3 Cutaway Section Posted 12.23.16

QUESTION: Concerning Section 9.3 the rules say "A full‐scale cutaway model section representative of both the raw and finished canoe shall be judged as part of the Final Product and shall be presented alongside the canoe" showing "at least three (3) feet of the cutaway section shall demonstrate the concrete casting, finishing, and reinforcement techniques used...".

Section 9 – Final Product (Canoe and Cutaway Section) & Section 10 – Product Display


Is there a specification on which part of the canoe must be represented in the cutaway (i.e. from the bulk head towards the center or a center section).

RESPONSE: There is no specific section of the canoe that must be represented by the cross‐section.

RFI No. 102 Subject: Section 9.1.1 General Requirements Posted 02.01.17

QUESTION: For aesthetics judging, all canoes shall be assembled in a common area. Canoes shall be displayed on display stands designed to support the canoe at a height of 2.5 to 4 feet below the canoe. No lighting, sound, or canopies shall be permitted at the time of judging. Is it permitted to sprinkle water on the canoe to make it wet during the time of display and judging?

RESPONSE: Water is not permitted to give the canoe a "wet look" during judging.

RFI No. 121 Subject: Section 9.3 Cutaway Section Posted: 02.09.17

QUESTION: Section 9.3 states "This means the cutaway cross‐section should look as if the finished product could be placed back onto the mold it was cast on, then took a saw to it and cut out a section that was long enough, and then stripped or peeled back layers exposing the stages of construction."

The cutaway requires a 3 foot section of concrete representation of the canoe. Would the sketch on the right side of the attached photo be an acceptable representation of the canoe? The cutaway would still display 3 feet of concrete, but it would only be one side of the canoe mold.

RESPONSE: This is acceptable.

SECTION 10 – Product Display RFI No. 30 Subject: Section 10.0: General Product Display Posted 10.24.16

QUESTION: According to Section 10.0 General Product Display, the “tabletop display…shall fall wholly within a 30” (W) x 96” (L) X 48”(H) box. If we include a thematic enhancement under the display table that does not incorporate any of the critical display elements (e.g., graphs, tables, figures, samples, etc.), must it fall in the 30” x 96” x 48” box defined above? Our table top display will certainly fall within those dimensions.

RESPONSE: The table top display may include thematic enhancements, but it must fall within the 30” x 96” x 48” box on top of the table. The only item that you can have that below the table top is a solid color table cloth.

RFI No. 83 Subject: Product Display Posted: 01.25.17

QUESTION: In Section 3.4.4: Aggregate Sample(s), it is stated that: "A 500 milliliter (min.) representative samples of both the individual aggregates and composite aggregate blends used in each concrete mixture shall be made available as part of the product display (10.1.b). Does any admixture components, specifically color pigmentation, need to be

Section 10 – Product Display& Section 11 – Race Rules and Regulations


included in the composite sample for display? Also, does a 500 mL jar of the pigmentation alone need to be in the display, even though it is not an aggregate?

RESPONSE: Please refer to Section 10.1.c for a list of items that are required (at a minimum) for the Product Display. Although some teams elect to display admixtures as part of the display, they are not required. Pigment is an admixture, so it does not fall under aggregates.

***CLARIFICATION*** RFI No. 111 Subject: Section 7.1.2.d, Section 10.1.a, “How To” Posted: 02.07.17

QUESTION: Section 7.1.2.d details the “How To” portion of the POTA: a notebook containing 40 photographs of all stages of canoe construction that will be presented on the display table. Section 10.1.a also mentions the display of a 40‐photograph “How To” on the table in almost identical language. Please confirm that these “How To” documents are one and the same, and that the POTA may be presented on the display table to meet the requirements of 10.1.a.

RESPONSE: The language in Section 10.1 was not revised correctly. The "How To" which is part of the POTA contains up to 40 photographs within it and is to be provided with the display. The display board itself does not need 40 additional photographs. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.

SECTION 11 – Race Rules and Regulations RFI No. 125 Subject: Bailers Posted: 02.10.17

QUESTION: I just recently began helping some students on developing their canoe paddling skills prior to their participation in the upcoming competition. I've taught boating skills and safety for 20 years. Can you clarify Section 11.2.5 Paddler Safety in the Rules and Regulations? Are they allowed a small 1/2 to 1 gallon plastic bailer(s) or small hand pump (both well under 20") for use in case of a capsizing or crack in the canoe.

RESPONSE: Paddlers are allowed to have reasonably sized hand operated bailing devices in the canoe. No gas powered trash pumps.

RFI No. 145 Subject: Section 11.2.5, Paddler Safety Posted: 02.21.17

QUESTION: Per Section 11.2.5, Paddler Safety, "All Paddlers shall wear a US Coast Guard approved inherently buoyant (no inflatables) Type I, II or III Personal Flotation Device (life jacket) at all times while in a canoe during competition and/or practice."

Last year at the Mid‐Pacific conference, we had to get special permission to use our Life vests. which are Type V PFD vests. According to the specs on our vests, they are approved by the Coast Guard for use in place of a Type III PFD vest only. Rather than waiting for competition this year, we would like to seek approval to use these life vests this year as well.

RESPONSE: These are acceptable.

2017 rfi summary - march - asce · abbreviated names & section 1 – general rules and...

Documents