lIW ENG Fountain Design

Finlll Report
Apri12012
. -- - --
/
April IS"'. 2012
Mr, Mario Baker
Sn.rte Force Collllll.ittee
University of Toronto
Toronto ON, M5S 3G4
Dear Mr. Baker & Company,
Please find atUched one copy oftne report enTitled " uw ENG Fountai n Desi gn". It documents
the design and constlUct ion process oft.he UW ENG Fountain.
In friendly retaliation ortlle Univemty of TorOlUo' 5 in the $lone place4 on the University
of Wlltcrloo campus, it was decided that a prank .... ould be CQnducted. After scveral different
options were explored, it was decided that a large concrete fountai n, placed in the middle of Suds
wOl.lld be the optimA) course of action The project was safely, ou time, and on
budgel
Tbis rC'pOrt Was written elltirely by 0111 group members and hIlS not any previous
credit at lhi! or any other in3titution.
Sincerely,
The Fountam Design Te&ll
- --."
UW ENG Fountain Design
Final Report
April 2012
/
Acknowledgements
The design team would like to thank Mr. Mario Baker and the Bmte Force Committee for
initiating this delightful challenge
The team wOllld also like to the Waterloo Engineering Society for several great years of fun, the
Home Depot staff for their helpfulness, the owners of the garage where they toiled away, and the
University of Waterloo Registrar's O!TIce for unintentionally optimizing the team's exam
schedules for the completion of this pmject.
"
..... ... .... .. .... ..... ... .... ... ... ............. .. .... .. .... .... ... ... ...... ........ ... ....... ........... .. II
Li st of Fi gures.. ....... .. ..... ..... . ................. . .. . .. . . . .. ........ ... . .. . . III
J 0 Imrodudion... . .. . .. ... .. ... .. .. . .. . ... ........ ... ........... . ... ... ...... . . .. 1
1. 1 Background Information .............. . ............... .
1.2 Extraction of the Sword .. ... .... ..... ... .......... . .. .. .
. .. 1
. ... 1
U Penetrating the Inner Sanctum .. ................... . ................ .. .. . .. . .. .............. . .. 2
1.4 Future Use of the Sword .. .. ........... . ........................ .. ...... .... .. . .. ....... ..4
1.5 Scope of\\'ork. ..... ............ ..... ... ..... ....... ... .. . ... ................... .... .. 5
2.0 Retllliation. ... ....... ..... ... ... .. . ............ ..... . ....... ...... . _. .... ......... .5
2. 1 COnptu;u Design. . ........... ........... ... ... .. .... .. . ... ......... ................. ...... ........ ... .. 5
2.2 Silt Investigation .. . .. .. . ... .. .... ..... ............... ..... . .............. .. .............. . .. ... .. 5
3.0 Desigo Methodology .... ... ............... .. ... ...... .. ..... ....... ...... ... .... .. .............. .... ...... ........... ..... .. 6
4.0 Fi nal Design ... .. ... ... ... .. ................ .... .. ... ... ........... .... .. .. .. ... ... ... ................ .. ...... ............... .. ... 7
" I Guidelines for Safe Pump Usc .. .. .... .... ... _ ........... .... ... ... ... ... ... ..... ........ ..... ... .. ... .. 8
5.0 Corutmction Plan. ...... .... ... ......... ........... ...... .. ...... .......... ... ... ... ... ..... ................ . .... 8
60 Conclusions ... ...... ... ... ... ........ .................. ......... " .... .. ... ....... ....... ... ............. ... ..... . ..... 8
7 0 Reoommendations ........... ...... ... ..... .... . .. .. .... ..... ... . ......... . .... ........ .... ,... . ..... .. ... . ... 9
Appendix A - Design Drawing! ......... , .. , .. 11
Appendix B - Concrete Mix Design .. .... " .......... .. . .. . .. . . ............. .. .. ... ............. ... ... . , ... . .. .. ..... 12
Lilt of Fliure5
Figure I. Fracture due to bcIXling stresses al conne-ction betwetrJ sword and bue ................ .. .. 2
Figure 2. SuccCMful penetration of Cl,l nCTete base ....... ... ... ... .... ....... .. ... ................... " ... ......... . 3
Figure) Conlent.s of calculus lexlbook found within base. ............ .. ... ....... ... .. .. .. ... .. .4
figure 4. Aerial vi ew of Sanford Fleming Building on UoIT CarnpUll (Bin$ Maps, 20 12) . ..... ... . 6
Fioal design oflhe fouotll in. ....... ...... ... ... ..... .. ..... .... .... ... ... ............. .... .............. ... . 7
'"
/
1.01ntmdllction
Tn t he spirit of Engineering, the pranking war initiated by representatives from the University of
Toronto (Uoff) has been reciprocated by students at the University of Waterloo (UW)_ This
rcport details the response to UoIT's initial proposal, as well as the detailed design of UW's
retaliatory prank. Time was a key constraint of the project, due to the exam schedules and
impending graduation of several participants_ Nonetheless, it was concluded that the preparation
of the proj ect was more interesting tban studying for /inals, and was thus completed on schedule
and within budget.
1.1 Backgronnd Information
Rivalry between the schools dates back many years, most notably in 1982 when UoIT stole The
Tool, UW Engineering's mascot. Waterloo's previolls visit to Uoff resulted in "extensive
plumbing repairs" and has come to be regarded as poor pranking practice in recent years.
The Bmte Force Committee arrived in Waterloo on March 30 with the sword in the stone; prior
to Waterloo's End of Term Party_ The statue was accompanied by a letter challenging Waterloo
students to remove the sword Irom the stone_
1.2 Extraction of the Sword
On the afternoon of April 1st, the Holiest ofPl'anking Days, several members of the design team
were taking a colTee break from their final projects when a half-hearted attempt to pull the sword
from its stony confines was made. It was noted that although the sword showed a high resistance
to vertical lift forces, it was prone to bending stresses where it connected with the concrete base.
Although the initial attempt to pluck the sword was only made injest, the team began to l1y more
seriously to remove it. Through the application offorces to the hilt of the sword in a back-and-
forth motion, bending stresses were appli ed to tbe sword's connection with the base, Ilntil the
metal pipe inside cracked (Figure 1)_ Although it was not originally intended to remove the
sword, it was decided that having done the deed, the t eam would accept the responsibilities
associated with it.
I


Figure t. Fracture due to bending stresses at wnnection between sword lind base.
As such, it was decided that the concrete base of the statue be investigated fully_
1.3 Penetrating tile Inner Sanctum
UoIT' s previous :;word-shenanigans with McMaster University were known to the team. so the
team chose to break into the base in case there was something inside. Preliminary taps revealed
a pleasant clunking noise that indicated a void at the centre of the block. Although this may have
been a weight-reducing meaSlIre on the part ofUon, the base was excavated anyway, Ilsing
sledgehammers and crowbars.
2

Figure 2. SuccHsful penetratioo of concrete base.
The emblem 011 the front of the block was identified as the probable zone of maxim urn
weakness, and as stich was targeted for demolition, \\'hen the concrete block was breached, a
bottle of beer, package ofTwinkies, and calculus textbook were revealed, Inside t he textbook
was a miniatllre pipe wrench.
Perhaps most notably, the textbook contained a letter from Mr. Mario Baker, indicating the
d e ~ i r e for a healthy prank war.
3
1.4 Future Use ofttn: Sword
II decided lhat the sword be returned to the Waterloo Engineering; Society with the intlIDlton
ofpreserv:ing it for future Students 10 come. It WIIS DOled with respect thai when UoIT
UW to iniltall tbo:: sword, they brought Ihe Tool model lt ft behind by UW durillg II. previmls
prank. The design leam was SOIDC\'Yhat touehed dlat UoIT kept illlik:r a1l 1hese years, and as
such Waterloo intend 10 keep the sword.
Seeing as design team' s ft dVenlures may have deprived other PlulIuncn (please make note of
the spelling for future pra.nk5) of the challCc to take the !!word and di llCOver the treasures within,
the team has also planned a Ue3SlJTe hunt for other W:llerloo stUdellts, to be completed lifter
successful implementation orlh' s prank. In order to sel the swon! b.1ck, they muS"l fi nd it fi rst.
4
1.5 Scope of Work
In the spirit of Engineering, it was determined that the only appropriRte course of action would
be to respond to UoIT's request with a prank. The prank was performed in good faith and with
respect for the University of Toronto. The spirit of the Pranker's Code was also rellected in the
execution of this project.
Safety was a main priority, with steps taken to ensure maximum safety during construction,
installation, and during the project's useful lifetime. Gloves, steel-toed boots, and safety sJasses
were worn during all mixing, grinding, sawing, and otherwise potentially harmful activities
Given the heavy weight of the components used in this project, all lifts were coordinated with
multiple people in order to reduce health and safety concerns.
Fmthermore, a key priority of this proje<,t was to perform the prank in a non-destructive way. As
such, it was decided that the prank would consist of some sort of Campus Beautification rather
than resorting to vandalism or destruction of property as has been done in the past. It is also
removable/reversible. The prank should not be considered offensive to a reasonable person, and
it is genera!!y regarded by the project team that this in'(iood Prank, rather than a Bad Prank.
The student body at Waterloo wasgenenilly impressed by the Sword and the Stone, and it is in
the same spirit that the project team has proceeded with their prank.
2_0 Retaliation
2.1 Conceptnal Design
Several pranking options were considered, including bringing the sword back to Toronto and
remounting it somewhere, or constructing another statue_ In the Spirit of Why o t ~ , the design
team decided to build a fOlllltain which w()(Jld be placed on the Uoff campus. The tburth
alternative was the "Do Nothing" option_ This option was abandoned in light of the fact that it
would be no fun for any of the involved parties_
2.2 Site Investigation
An investigation of the site was conducted on the University of Toronto campus prior to t he
finalized design issued for construction of the project. It was originally intended to place the
fountain in front of the Sanford Fleming Building. This location would provide an optimal
5
rehlTn on prank effort fairly central location on campus and is along a highly trafllcked route.
Due to the lack of visible electtical outl ets, this location was deemed inleasib Ie.
Figure 4. Aerial view or Sanr(lrt/ FttiJIing Building on UoIT CamlJUs (Bing Maps, 2012).
Upon further review, the scouting team indicated that fountain placement inside U ofT's
beloved campus watering hole, SUDS was ideal. Notable features of this location include an
accessibl e electrical outlet, a floor drain in case of leaks or spills, high visibility and access via a
service elevalor.
3.0 D e ~ i g n MetilOdology
With the selection of the prank design and intended location, the preliminary design stage was
then executed. Many members on the team have a penchllnt for working with concrete; hence it
was chosen as the primary stroctural material. Neglecting preference, concrete shapes are
boundless; only limited by the imagination and skill of tho constructors, Furthermore, concrete
allows lor large compression loads, a resistance to water deterioration, and is cumbersome to
remove. The multiple mix designs used in fountain are explained in further sections and their
placement was heavily dependant on the exterior aesthetics and strength. Plywood and loam
were selected lor the IOrmwork. Wood was selected in light ofits versatility and relativoly low
cost. Foam was used for crafting the more complicated portions of tile blocks.
6
The "UW ENG" statue words were finalized, Formwork was designed (see Appendix A) and
various mix designs for the concrete were examined (Appendix B),
4.0 Final Design
For the final design. it was decided that large block letters would be llSed to spell out "uw
ENG", The ENG letters were wider and deeper, so as to support the applied loads above. The
UW letters were made thinner so as to minimize loading on the structure below and improve
aesthetics. The bottom letters were placed in a brick trough intended to hOllse the water from the
fountain, The two layers of letters were separated by a secondary concrete trough. with four
small weir openings cut out of the front so as to allow the passage of water. A similar tertiary
trough was constructed on top of the UW to collect the water, The faces of the letters were
grinded and sealed to improve the nppearance of the fountain.
Figure S. Final design of Ille fOllntain.
Mix designs varied based on availability of materials and purpose of the component The main
letters used high-early strength mixes in order to meet the tight deadline of the proj ect.
Plasticizers were used to improve the workability of the mix where the formworX was more
complicated. The upper trough used a lower-strength mix because it was not a main load-
bearing member. In an attempt to better learn the prO\:ess of crack propagation through
7
u"reinforced concrete, the uppa Iroush was dropped on Ihc ground repe:U.edI)', cl&Cki"S i1. in IWt)
pl3ees. 11l is also gave die dcsign learn Ihc opponunit)' 10 cxpt'riment with kveraJ different
concrete IIdltcsives, of wbich woli:ed pa"ieu1ar ly m:U given the tight tirncliJl C
project. Jt thus advised thllt the client be careful with the top trough, and to o;:sp:.ially lVoid
sitting 01'1 it or anything of that
A IImall garden pump was used t o provide necessary flow to operat e the system, which is
intended to circulate continuousl y after beill!! filled.
4.1 Gltkl ellnc! (or Sart l'ltmp UK
It !J\ould be not ed thai there sre spific operal il'lg guidclincs for the pump used by this PH)jcct.
notably, die Huids passed through the pump atC resuicted 10 IWler. Mut;h to dlc dc, igners'
chllgrin, tlte pump is IlOt intcruied to proceu or chorolate. We: either oflhese viable
options, tbi:y would have boon implemented for the enjoyment of the cl iem. Uk in the
pump may result in failure.
Tbcrc Me also several safety concerns _ to the operation of the fountain. Tbo end of lhe
electrical cord used to power the kept away:jrom any water, lest the user ri;l:::
electToCUlion. Therc is also the threat of drowning in the fountain, althOllsIJ it mllS! be rIOted that
Ille uscr WOIIld need t o be preUy dumb for that to hHppen.
!'I.G CGIUlnJ( linR Pb_
ConstruCl ion took place ov<:r s period of eight days. I'ormwork wu bui ll, then the were
poured. The troughs were then poured with 5light modifications to t he mil{, due to Illlneria.l
shortages. Formwork was removed and the faces filed and grinded smooth. Tile pre-cllit
componentS were then assembled on site and to improve overall struclural
stability and reduce safety risks to the chent.
Ci.O Co.dlulons
The ffnal design is within the Spirit ofEllgilleeri ll8, the Spiri t oftb( Pranker's Code, and the
Spirit of Why NOI ? Five large prN:asr concrete blocks were assembled o n site u a foullIllin io
the interem of engagi ng in a Itc:altby pranking wu with the ofToronlO
8
7.0 ROmJllnldllti "ru
There llfC several re.;()mmendatimlS regarding future of too fOl.lntai n. The team maintllim no
liability for mi SLIse of the fountain. Thi s iru:ludes btl! is not limited to silling on it, standing on it,
having sex on it, dC. Abo, there are no internal compartments in the fountain, so don' t bother
looking for any.
It is hoped that the d ieDt eDjoys their statue: lIS Inuch a$ the dcsign team building it
Waterloo eagerly awaits TorontO' s re.spome
9
Rdf: rffLU$
Amerit1ll1 ConCll'1C Institut e. (2008). GII/(kj()f' !iekcting Proporl ionvjor High-strfnJ{th
Concrete Using Pordam/Cem.:nt and OrMr Cemenlitious Muleriab. Farmington Hilli,
MI . Concrete Instil ute,
Baker, M. (n,d) Pranking /Of. April 9, 2012, from The Brul e Force Committee:
http://www.mariosbakery.caJbfcl#pra\lkin8'01
Cement of Can ada (2008), Concrete Desigll Handbook Cement
Associ ation of Canada
Mother, Y. (20 12).
10
Appendix A - Design Drawings
11
.
,.,
,
0
::s
<+
~ c
10
I
<
."
D
0
<+
,
_.
3
0
::s
< _.
10
:E
, ,


w'


,

~ .
. %
~
o ~
F ~ "
z
w

~ ~ :-
~ ,
,
, '
"


,


<


,



,
,
w
~
- ,.
~
"
,
0
g
l'i
~
0,63
-
- . .. .. __ .
'"
o
2
-
'"
l 6
._-- -_ ...... .
----------
," ._- -"""

(/)
_.
Q.
II)
I'l
-
II)
c
<
I
P
-t)
<+
0
_. ,
0
3
3
-
< _.
II)
"
,
,
rD
I
,
,
w I
, ,
, ,
,
z
~
~ ~
rD


Ul
,
-,
"
,
~ J
!'
,
~
,
,
,
,
!
"
z
w
,
.


ll'


~
1"
,
~



,
~
~
,
;
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
, ,
,
;



z
0
- , ,0
~
,
0
,

g
,
0
,
N
I
~
,
~
... .
Apjlendix B - COllcrele Mix Design
12
Appendix C - Miscellaneous Photos
13
Very Technical
'ntit ious
'ntType 30
,n Type F
wo grade)
Fume

,
Jensity
)ensity
ofCA
)ensity of Fine,
lensityofFine,
l/2
;ontel1t diff.
d water
ltofwoter
' ntitious
ment
'h
,
Mix 1 (%)
HOOO Psi
1-2 ill
0.28
101.00 Ibjft3
2.66))
u ": i;i;6iF
1854.4 Iblyd3
2.729
7.21608366
577l866931b
351.7l 8669
Dr. Who
before HRWRA
"I
Density Mass concrete)
3l5 503_9
'7
251_9
l9'< 503-9
Concrete Mix Design
Date: A ril9, 2012


[,

(iy
1','. ,
D- ,
6(
fu
Very Technical
Mibtrial

,h
Fume
'" A<;ogregatf!S
r Content.
lntent
Vol ume
neofFA
of FA
ltraining AdmilC"lvre
mtJkg celT\ll! nt
AE
r
mt oZ/"l.oolb cement
AE
mt ozh oolbcemeflt
"

Jtioa
lire r:.ont ent
rrtion
cure content
1 Volume
rial
!menl
JJ da55 F
rad':! 100
Fum':!
'1eA r
re ates
r (l ess admillturn)
)Iltent ('Vo)
By:
Vol,"""", tt3

LI09S
. ,..

11.1]4
5.
6
53
0.675
:14. 286
. "",
o.()O 9
8 oz/r:.wt
10<q8 oz
26. 51:
L"
...
1175
054
3)0
39.:17 Ib/yd3
1.00 yd3
mess (Ib)
"


18 4.4
611
02. 1
,.
Concrete Mix Design
Or. Who
6.lg8J16 Ib
5.0389111 Ib
_. )
, .

, .

1.1.00.1.
, ..
.,
,
Dilte: M 9. 2012
1I ';S,Ifr'pU"'i
""",. "'I ",ote, -(8 of
100% nf
."'swmp! klIl
1 .()o tt)

U.2
'.L
L
Very Technical
Concrete Mix Design
0,110 l
0,088 L
14
15