"University of Florida (Gators)"

(12th overall, 16th in paper, 11th in presentation, 11th in product, 5th in races)

Winner of ASCE's "R. J. Craig Award"

Product:


Canoe Name: Accelegator; Canoe Weight: 151 lb; Canoe Length: 22'

Presentation:

The University of Florida represented the Southeast Conference and made their tenth national appearance.

The Gators relied on 4 people to make their presentation; 3 men and 1 woman. The presenters were dressed in formal attire. The team used 1 screen; there were 2 animations.

The team based their theme on an IndyCar. They began their presentation with a team introduction and the rationale for selecting their theme.

The team began their technical presentation with project management and focused on their organizational structure.

They explained how they used a practice boat to improve their delivery and described how they used models to improve the hydrodynamic performance of their canoe. Then, they described their structural analysis.

The team discussed the mix design process. They detailed the improvements that they made and mentioned how they thought that their mix would improve aesthetics.

The team provided details regarding their test program including the properties of their reinforcement. Then, it was on to construction.

The team described how they constructed their boat and used quality control to improve the process. They described their curing and finishing techniques including their addition of graphics.

The team discussed their cost and material savings and specified the cost and man hours spent on the project. Then, they brought their presentation to conclusion.

Questions and Comments:

  • Why was it impractical to use Reynolds similitude?
  • What was the limiting factor that prohibited you from doing so?
  • What are cenospheres?
  • Why did you begin with a clean slate when considering your hull design?
  • Would prior knowledge have helped this process?
  • Your budget was approximately $2k. What would you have done differently if your budget was doubled?
  • Were the scale models tested indicative of the canoe that you built?
  • If the duration of a critical path activity is longer than planned, how can you make adjustments to remain on track?
  • Why did you choose to analyze your canoe with cracks present?
  • Are you ok with having cracks in your canoe?
  • You found that you had good bonding. What steps would you have taken if debonding had occurred?
  • How did you analyze the results from your scanning electron microscope tests?
  • What temperatures did you use during the curing process?
  • Heating a mix containing slag can increase strength. Can you apply too much heat to this type of concrete?

Commentary:

The team had a good delivery but some of the questions were pretty difficult to address.

Display:

Vital Statistics

Back to Previous Page