|
|
|
By Team UAH This year’s ASCE/MBT National Concrete Canoe Competition was the most competitive to date with a number of teams looking to take the national title from Clemson. But Clemson proved unstoppable and won the competition for a second time followed by Oklahoma State, the Florida Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, and the University of Washington. UAH placed sixth overall.
The event was hosted by the Colorado School of Mines. They did an excellent job and the judging was top notch. Races were held on Big Soda Lake.
Clemson won this year's competition with a 21-ft, 100-pound canoe named "Instinct," constructed of a concrete mix with lightweight aggregates and polypropylene mesh reinforcement. They incorporated ribs to prevent excessive deflection and provide needed strength.
Clemson’s multilayered reinforcement scheme was very similar to ours. The main difference was that our graphite reinforcement mesh was stronger and stiffer than theirs, making it possible for us to eliminate ribs. But both canoes emerged unscathed from the competition, proving once again that remarkable structural performance can be achieved provided that materials are selected and positioned well in a reinforced concrete composite section.
In all honesty, we expected to do better at nationals but, following a very strong regional effort, were plagued by financial, physiological, logistical, and technical problems. We overextended our budget and spent far too much time raising funds; the funds that we did generate were not transferred efficiently, creating immense stress on our faculty advisors and precluding the possibility of sending our team to Golden early; one of our key players was called upon to help coordinate a space mission at Kennedy Space Flight Center on race day forcing us to completely revise our delivery two weeks before the competition; our team’s arrival in Golden was delayed and, when we finally got there, were unable to schedule practice sessions due to high winds and inclement weather; the risks taken in our display (touch screen, big screen TV, reference manuals, props, etc.) and while making our presentation (audio score, choreography, etc.) did not pay off; and, our polymeric drag reduction actually worked against us on race day.
Aside from these problems, we underestimated Clemson. While building and designing our boat, we were working under the assumptions that we had the fastest hull in the game, and had pressed the design envelope to the point where it was impossible to increase the top speed of our canoe. So, as opposed to making our boat travel faster, we strove to reduce deceleration. Our strategy was to increase our average velocity so that our team could travel from point A to point B faster. We widened and flared our hull to increase stability, and rounded the bottom to reduce drag.
All looked good until Clemson produced a faster hull. 3CT (Clemson Concrete Canoe Team) accomplished this by narrowing their last year’s boat. They reduced the flare in the side walls but increased stability by incorporating hard chines and a predominately flat bottom. The team was smart enough to spend a few days on the lake in Golden prior to the event, and fortunate enough to train at altitude. Their radical design coupled with the attention to detail enabled 3CT to dominate the field.
In retrospect, we concede that the mode of presentation incorporated into our display may not have been compatible with the manner in which the judges performed their evaluation. A loose wire in our audio circuit delayed the musical score in our presentation, making our presenters uneasy from the start. It was a good thing that our audio-visual team was able to fix the problem before our team was forced to ad-lib. No telling what the judges would have thought had our presenters begun to gyrate and interact without music. Hey, but who knows, it may have been so funny that we may have won. Lastly, who could have guessed that the rainy conditions on race day would facilitate capillary action on our paddles, allowing our long chain polymers to spew up the shafts making the paddles impossible to grip.
It goes to show you that there are always new lessons to be learned. The good news is that the only price that we pay to learn them at the national concrete canoe competition is to sacrifice a little bit of our pride. Despite the problems that we encountered, we had a great deal of fun this year and made many new friends at the competition.
We can honestly say that we gave it our best shot this year and came up short. But rest assured, we will be better prepared next time round. Meanwhile, our hats go off to Clemson and 3CT for a job well done.
On behalf of all concerned, we thank ASCE and MBT for giving us all a unique opportunity to test our engineering skills, and thank our sponsors very much for supporting us. We look forward to working with all of you next season. Additional details and photos of the competition can be found on Master Builders web site and we have reproduced an article that appeared in ASCE News. The Huntsville Times also ran a feature article regarding the UAH effort. |
