Competition Commentary .:. Team UAH 2003

2003 © Sarah Yeldell. Original artwork and website design except where noted.

UAH Appeal | UAH Protest | CNCCC Response

- Official UAH Appeal -

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

School Name: University of Alabama in Huntsville

Team Captain: Ms. Sarah Yeldell, UAH ASCE Student Chapter President

Nature of Inquiry:

(X) Technical Paper Judging
(X) Final Product Judging
(X) Oral Presentation
( ) Races
(X) Other: Possible Spreadsheet Errors; Inconsistent and Unfair Judging Practices

Briefly Describe Nature of Inquiry or Protest:

As you know, the 2003 Southeast Regional ASCE Student Conference was held this past weekend in Miami, Florida where the four top placements in the concrete canoe competition were announced by the host school as:

[1] Florida Institute of Technology (FIT),
[2] University of Puerto Rico (UPR),
[3] University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH),
[4] University of Florida (UF).

We are concerned that FIT and UPR were not penalized in the final product category after failing their flotation tests and are asking you to review and change the final standings.

We also maintain that the both the technical paper and oral presentation categories were judged inconsistently making the competition unfair to all contestants.

Justifications for making our appeal and these observations follow.

Re: Penalties and Possible Scoring Errors:

The two schools that finished first (FIT and UPR) both "failed the flotation test at the normal time of flotation testing" and should have received a fifty-point penalty on the Final Product Score Sheet (see Rule II.A.10, Rule IV.B.3, and "Deductions" listed on Final Product Score Sheet). The schedule of events, published by the host school, called for swamp tests to be conducted on Friday, March 21, 2003 immediately following the final aesthetics judging. When the canoes in question were submerged in the flotation tank, they failed to surface (see Rule II.A.10).

The schools added flotation to their canoes that evening and the boats were retested at the race site on Saturday, March 22, 2003. The flotation materials used during the races were not present during the final aesthetics judging (see Rule II.A.11). As far as we know, both boats passed the flotation test at this time and there were no further penalties (10 points each infraction) assessed for "failure to include flotation material in the canoe if it is required to pass the swamp test" (see "Deductions" listed on Final Product Score Sheet).

Since the rules that were violated are listed in Sections II and IV, and the regional host must adopt and comply with these sections (Rules V.B and V.D), the point deductions listed on the Final Product Sheet are mandatory.

We are asking you to review the spreadsheet compiled by the host school for accuracy making certain that the mandatory fifty-point penalties were deducted from the final product scores of FIT and UPR. If they were, and the final placements seem correct, we would greatly appreciate an opportunity to review the entire spreadsheet for the competition so that we can see how the scores earned by these schools ended up being higher than ours.

We should also point out that Rule II.A.2 states, "No new flotation shall be allowed between the Regional and National Competitions without point deduction," thereby, placing FIT at a significant disadvantage even if they were able to participate at the national level. Chances are that their team could never finish in the top five making it impossible for our region to capitalize on Rule I.C. This is very unfair considering the number and quality of the canoes involved in the Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe Competition and will lead to increased tension between the competitors in next year's competition.

Re: Inconsistent and Unfair Judging Practices:

According to Section V of the National Rules (page 26), there should be a uniform system for national qualification and the Regional Competitions must adopt and comply with certain rules. But what about cases where separate competitions are effectively held within the same Regional Competition? Perhaps we should elaborate.

While giving our oral presentation, it was apparent and confirmed by one of the judges that some of the judging panel never received and had not even read our technical paper (we have this statement on video tape). This knowledge coupled with feedback that we received following the question and answer session raises some serous issues and concerns.

For example, we made it clear in our design report that the standard methods used to analyze civil engineering structures cannot be applied to study our concrete canoe. We performed a stress analysis on cementitious plates subjected to static loading conditions using a modified transform section theory that we developed earlier. As far as we know, we are the first researchers to apply laminated plate theory to understand the dynamic behavior of highly flexible cementitious plates, and structures built using these unique structural elements. We claim in our report to have designed an adaptive section that resists reverse loadings and to have produced a canoe that surges forward between strokes and swims. We performed impact hammer tests to verify the modal shapes predicted by our finite element model and we substantiated our claims by evaluating our performance in the water. As far as our concrete is concerned, we developed our mix design based exclusively on composite testing. By matching deflections of cantilevered samples, we proved that it was not necessary to test any concrete mixtures separately in order for us to meet our flexibility and strength criteria. Later, we demonstrated that our entry was the best by winning in the water against veteran teams with a six person paddling team, half of which had only paddled for a few months.

How could any judge that had not read our report be expected to absorb all of the technical information mentioned in the previous paragraph within five minutes? Could any of you? We know that we couldn't. Without this understanding, it is impossible to fairly compare our efforts to those of other schools that may have finished higher in this category.

Another question that comes to mind is, did different panels of judges review the technical papers submitted by the contestants? If this was the case, it would have been impossible to make a fair comparison between the reports.

Following the question and answer session, the judges were kind enough to give us constructive criticism. One of them suggested that we should have considered including an outline in our presentation. We probably would have done so if we had known beforehand that some of the judges would not be reading our design report. Needless to say, this was not our expectation. Chances are that we would not be alone in making this appeal if the other schools, such as UF, realized what was really going on behind the scenes.

Another judge mentioned that our design report was more marketing than technical. But in it we outlined the flexibility and strength requirements that we needed to achieve, and explained exactly how we did that. We found this task extremely difficult to do within the two-page limit imposed by the rules. The judge's comment leads us to believe that other schools may have added technical appendices and/or additional materials to their reports. Did schools that may have finished higher than us in the design report category do this? Were the judges aware that such additions were against the rules?

The oral presentations began at 8:30 a.m. and, inconsistent with how the competition is run nationally, only members of the presenting school were allowed to watch their presentation. This restriction was not placed on this category in prior regional competitions.

We gave our presentation at 9:30 a.m. and adhered to Rule III.B.1, clocking it in at 4 minutes 55 seconds. However, when UPR delivered their presentation an hour later, the lead judge allegedly told them that they had 10 minutes to make their presentation. This issue was discussed during the Annual Business Meeting and obviously gave UPR a significant and unfair advantage. It also raises several questions.

Why was UPR given this extra time? FIT was scheduled to give their presentation shortly thereafter. Did they enjoy the same privilege of having 10 minutes to make their presentation? We were told that we had only 5 minutes by our judges. Did different panels of judges judge different schools in the oral presentation category too?

There were other things that were selectively judged and perhaps overlooked during the final product judging ranging from producing MSDS sheets and demonstrating reinforcement compliance to producing reinforcement to thickness calculations and questioning the legality of materials used for construction. We could elaborate here but will refrain from doing so in the spirit of the competition. However, we would like to suggest that some rules be clarified prior to the national competition so that all schools are forced to produce the same materials at the final aesthetics judging. We strongly suggest that the words "be prepared and able to," "upon request," and "upon request," be stricken from Rules II.B.5.b, II.B.5.c, and II.F.3 respectively, to make this competition fair to all of the participants.

We could go on and on with this appeal and are prepared to elaborate if asked to do so. But we feel that we have presented sufficient and strong evidence to show that point deductions should have been taken in the Final Product Category from FIT and UPR; and, at least two categories of the Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe Competition, namely the design report category and the oral presentation category, were judged inconsistently and unfairly.

We invite you to look into these matters and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Rules Section Referenced:

Re: Final Product Judging - Rule II.A.10 (page 5), Rule II.A.11 (page 5), Rule IV.B.3 (page 21), Rule V.B (page 26), Rule V.D (page 26), and Deductions on Final Product Score Sheet (page 33). Suggestion made to change Rules II.B.5.b (page 6), II.B.5.c (page 7) and II.F.3 (page 11).

Re: Technical Paper Judging - Section V (page 26).

Re: Oral Presentation Judging - Section V (page 26), Rule III.B.1 (page 17).

- Official UAH Protest -

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

School Name: University of Alabama in Huntsville

Team Captain: Ms. Sarah Yeldell, UAH ASCE Student Chapter President

Nature of Inquiry:

( ) Technical Paper Judging
(X) Final Product Judging
( ) Oral Presentation
( ) Races
(X) Other: Inconsistent and Unfair Judging Practices

Briefly Describe Nature of Protest:

As you know, we submitted a formal appeal to you on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 in which we claimed that the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) failed to pass their flotation test at the Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe Competition. Contrary to the claim made by FIU's Concrete Canoe Chair, we maintain that the FIT entry failed this test and are submitting this protest to you with our reasons for making this claim.

The fact that FIT failed the test was disputed by the 2003 ASCE Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe Chair in an email sent to our faculty advisor, Dr. Gilbert, on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. In this communication he said, "I do want to mention, contrary to your email though, that Florida Tech did successfully swamp their canoe in the first attempt, which was not done until Saturday as the tank was not big enough to accommodate the Florida Tech canoe on Friday." Both of these claims are false.

FIT's boat was smaller than ours in every dimension and should have easily fit into the tank. We maintain that the FIT canoe was tested on Friday afternoon and, after failing their test, the team was given a second opportunity to swamp their boat, without penalty, on Saturday morning at the lake. The team was in possession of their boat between the final aesthetics judging on Friday afternoon and the test conducted by the judges on Saturday morning. We observed FIT performing an unofficial flotation test on Friday evening at the lake between these two events. Evidence to support these serious claims follows.

The photo in the upper right hand corner of the next page was taken at the final aesthetics judging and it shows the graphic that FIT placed on the bottom of their boat. Note that the graphic spans gunwale to gunwale.

By Rule II.D.3.b, this graphic is required to fit within a 24-inch diameter circle.

Therefore, unless the size of the graphic was illegal, FIT's boat cannot be more than 32" wide.

The team reports the length of their boat to be 21 feet on their website.

The second photo from the top of the page shows our boat being tested in the flotation tank on Friday afternoon. Our hull is 21 feet long, has a maximum width of 32 inches, and a maximum depth of 12.5 inches. Our boat fit into the tank with plenty of room to spare.

We believe that FIT's boat was slightly less deep than ours.

Since FIT's boat is smaller than ours in every dimension, the claim that their boat was too large to fit into the float tank is completely unfounded. And, there is no reason, whatsoever, that this boat should not have been tested in the tank on Friday afternoon.

We also note that there was a pond less than 100 feet away from the flotation tank. So, there was no excuse for not testing any of the entries then, even if they were too big to fit into the tank.

The third photo shows the FIT team placing seats in their canoe. It is also evident that they required flotation material that was in their boat at the time of the final product judging.

The email mentioned previously gives the false impression that FIT's boat was not tested at all on Friday afternoon. But this is simply not true.

Several members of our team were present during the flotation tests and recall seeing FIT's team place their boat in the flotation tank. The team submerged it and the boat remained below the surface of the water. After several minutes, the FIT team removed their boat from the tank. Simply put, the FIT canoe failed the flotation test and the judges overlooked the infraction.

The team removed their boat from the site and we observed them performing an unofficial swamp test at the lake later that evening while we were practicing there. Even if their boat had not been tested on Friday afternoon, is it fair that FIT conducted a swamp test between the final aesthetics judging and the swamp test that supposedly certified their entry? No other school was afforded this privilege and we feel that they received preferential treatment. We also note that, contrary to the test that we observed on Friday afternoon, the FIT canoe miraculously passed the test on Saturday morning.

We feel that there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the final product category was judged inconsistently and unfairly. Infractions were overlooked and penalties were not assessed that should have been.

We ask you to look very closely into these very serious claims and take appropriate action to correct the standings in this competition. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Rules Section Referenced:

Re: Final Product Judging - Rule II.A.10 (page 5), Rule II.A.11 (page 5), Rule IV.B.3 (page 21), Rule V.B (page 26), Rule V.D (page 26), and Deductions on Final Product Score Sheet (page 33).

- Official CNCCC Response to the UAH Appeal -

The Committee for the National Concrete Canoe Competition has reviewed your Request for Clarification. We have contacted the regional host, communicated with the judges, and reviewed the scoring. Based on this review the corrected final standings are:

1st place overall: Florida Institute of Technology

2nd place overall: University of Alabama at Huntsville

3rd place overall: University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez

4th place overall: University of Florida

Concerning specific points of your request:

FIT was not penalized for flotation problems because, due to concerns about the size of the flotation tank, they were given permission to test flotation on the morning of the competition. This then became their normal time of flotation testing and they passed that test without requiring external flotation.

UPR did fail the initial flotation test. They were able to modify their canoe and passed the subsequent test on Saturday morning. The change in standings above reflects a 50 point final product penalty which was not originally assessed. Additional deductions would not have further effect.

The host school randomly distributed reports to judges before the competition. Not all judges read all reports. The CNCCC believes the system was fair to the competitors.

Not all judges evaluating oral presentations had read all the reports. The CNCCC believes this was fair to the competitors.

All Schools were given the same amount of time to give their oral presentations.

It has long been our policy not to distribute the final spreadsheets. These are the corrected points.

School : Paper - Oral - Product - Race

Total

FIT : 30.0 - 25.0 - 15.0 - 23.5
93.5

UAH : 18.0 - 15.0 - 13.5 - 28.8
75.3

Univ. of Puerto : 27.0 - 20.0 - xx - 21.0
Rico
68.0

Univ. of Fla. : 15.0 - 12.5 - 12.0 - 28.3
75.3

Thus, the CNCCC fins that the competition was judged fairly and that the corrected oversight of a flotation penalty to UPR does not affect the 1st place winner.