Float Cardboard Vessel Contest November 1999

1
Float Cardboard Vessel ContestNovember 1999

• James Martin
• Lisia Rivera
• Lab Section 2

2
Outline/Overview

• Introduction
• Objectives
• Constraints
• Approach
• Decision
• Preliminary Sketches
• Calculations

3
Outline/Overview Cont

• Prototype
• Refinement
• Implementation
• Results
• Conclusion
• Improvements
• Acknowledgements

4
Introduction

• Forces acting on object in water
• upward force buoyancy force
• downward force weight force
• Certain amount of water is displaced
• The buoyancy force volume of the displaced
  water

Captain Vessel
Weight
(water)
5
Main Objectives

• To create a floatable vessel with only
• Corrugated, brown cardboard
• Duct tape
• Survive/optimize both the speed and endurance
  tests

6
Other Objectives

• Optimize endurance
• Durable design that will last in the water
• Optimize speed
• Sleek with least amount of drag
• Optimize size
• Just large enough for captain to fit in

7
Constraints

• Vessel can only weigh 30 lbs.
• Paddled by captains arms and legs
• Only 50 ft of duct tape
• No pre-constructed materials
• Less than 5 feet width (lane markers)

8
Constraints Cont

• Captains life vest must not go below water level
  for 3 seconds
• Must complete 2 laps of UOP pool
• Must survive the endurance test after completing
  laps

9
ApproachIdea 1

• Pontoon vessel
• Advantages
• Traps air
• Keeps vessel afloat
• Disadvantages
• Water fill inside quickly
• Hard for captain to navigate

(example of vessel2D bottom view)
10
ApproachIdea 2

• Boat-type vessel
• Advantages
• Minimize water drag
• Very stable
• Disadvantages
• Large size hard for captain to navigate
• Hard to build

11
Decision

• Because of the first structures weaknesses, we
  went with our second idea
• will hold up longer in the pool
• better balance, control, and speed
• Less bulk weight

12
Decision Cont

• Key Features
• Front pointed and sloped upward
• Less water drag faster speed
• Wide body
• Easy to balance faster speed
• Tall sides
• Prevent water from flowing in better endurance
• Tall rear wall
• Prevent water from flowing in better endurance

13
Preliminary Sketches
3D-Rear sketch (meters)
14
Preliminary Sketches Cont
2D Bottom Sketch (meters)
15
Preliminary Sketches Cont
2D Top View (meters)
3D Side View (meters)
16
Final Calculations

• Buoyancy Force (force of water)
• Equal to total weight (captain vessel)
• Buoyancy Force (63.6kg 3.2kg)
• Buoyancy Force66.8kg

Captain Vessel
Weight
Buoyancy Force
(water)
17
Calculations Cont

• Submerged Volume (in water)
• BfLiquid density gravity submerged volume
• Bf66.8kg
• Liquid density of water 1000 kg/m3
• Gravity 9.81 m/s2
• Solve for Volume
• 66.8kg(1000kg/m3)(9.81m/s2)(volume)
• Volume 0.0068 m3

18
Calculations Cont

• Float base area (in water)
• Total Base area (lengthwidth) of square on
  vessel
• Front nose doesnt touch water, its area is
  excluded
• Area (0.79m0.74m)
• Area 0.58m2

Length (0.74m)
Width (0.79m)
19
Calculations Cont

• Minimum height of vessel
• Min heightsubmerged volume/base area
• Volume 0.0068m3
• Base area 0.58m2
• Min height(0.0068m3)/(0.58m2)
• Minimum height 0.12m
• Our vessel height 0.3 m, thus meeting this
  criteria

20
Testing Prototype

• Prototype 1/3 scale of vessel
• Wrapped prototype in plastic
• Tested in pool with heavy rocks (50 lbs)
• Vessel survived
• Needed improvements
• Sides, dimension, layers

(Prototype being tested)
21
Prototype Pictures Cont
(Testing out Prototype)
22
Refinement/Changes

• Too wide
• Width 0.79m instead of 1.1m
• Length 1.0m instead of 1.1m
• Sloped rear upward
• Help with captains weight and balance

0.79m width
(Float side view)
1.0m length
23
Refinement/Changes Cont

• Layered bottom and sides
• More strength
• Better endurance
• Decreased side height
• Side walls 0.3m instead of 0.5m
• Rear wall 0.27m instead of 0.3m
• Help captain use his legs
• Based on calculations

0.27m height
0.3m height
24
Implementation

• The vessel took approximately seven hours to
  complete
• Built the vessel in the basement of Casa Werner

(Side view of Float)
25
Implementation Cont
(Top view of Float)
(Bottom view of Float)
26
Implementation Cont
(Prototype and Float)
(Side view of Float)
27
The Big Day Results

• Float completed 2 laps
• Speed 1 minute, 11 seconds 1st in heat
• Endurance 16 minutes, 13 seconds
• Fulfilled all criteria and constraints

(Pre-competition gathering)
28
The Big Day Cont
(Float starting off the two laps, testing out
speed)
(The return trip back)
29
The Big Day Cont
(Captain Mike testing out Floats endurance)
(The endurance competition)
30
Conclusion

• Float fulfilled specified constraints
• Weighed 3.2kg (7 lbs)
• Used under 15.2m (50 ft) of duct tape
• Was constructed with corrugated, brown cardboard
  only

(Float side view)
31
Conclusion Cont

• Front sloped end
• Provided less dragfaster time
• Back sloped end
• Provided both strength and durability in holding
  captain
• Layered bottom
• Kept water out
• Strength for endurance test

(Float bottom view)
32
Conclusion Cont

• Layered sides
• Extra strength for endurance test
• Efficient use of duct tape
• Held Float together
• Kept water out as long as possible
• Small size
• Easy maneuverability
• Lightweight
• Optimized structure strength

(Float top view)
33
Possible Improvements

• Better visibility
• Hard for captain to see, sitting backwards
• More layered cardboard in front
• More strength, longer endurance
• More layered cardboard in corners
• Better strength, longer endurance

34
Acknowledgements

• Other members of our group
• Xiaojin Gan
• Captain Mike keeping Float floating for as
  long as possible
• Hector Rivera for cardboard
• Melanie Badinski for pictures of competition and
  use of scanner