LIGHTWEIGHT BIOCHAR CONCRETE ROOF 2 nd generation 4

LIGHTWEIGHT BIOCHAR CONCRETE ROOF 2 nd generation 4 Walls – Customer Ithaka Institute – Material Sponsors Sarah Brownell- Faculty Champion John Kaemmerlen- Faculty Guide

• Introduction • Project Background • Problem Statement Current and Desired State • Goals and Main Deliverables • Constraints • • Use Scenarios • Requirements • HOQ • Benchmarking • Risks • Project Plan Agenda

Introductions Team Member Role Mary Korycansky Project Manager Rory Little Testing/Manufacturing Lead Jenn Kane Lead Engineer Luqman Zainalabidin Modeling/Simulation Engineer Carmen Azzaretti Design Lead

Stakeholders 4 -Walls Project • Bonnie Yannie, Joe Hallinan, Robert Boxer, Sally Kuehl and Kellen Morgan Ithaka Institute • Kathleen Draper Faculty Champion • Sarah Brownell Nicaraguan Natives

Project Background • The 4 -Walls project Raises money • Provides volunteers • Builds permanent homes in El Sauce, Nicaragua • • Current roofs - zinc coated roofing sheets Imported and shipped hundreds of miles • Most costly piece of the home • Noisy during rain • Traps heat inside the house • • P 16485 – Lightweight Concrete Roofing Tiles Combatting cost • Helping local economy • Safer homes •

Biochar • Thermal decomposition of biomass with limited oxygen and low temperatures • Role in concrete

Problem Statement Desired Current • Biochar concrete tiles • Improved biochar concrete mix • 2 Tile design • Full roof design • Leaks • No leaks • Bamboo supports • Improved system for attachment • Improved strength to weight • Reduce cost • Standardized work for manufacturing

Problem Statement Goals • • • Improve biochar concrete mix and manufacturing process Design roofs to be made locally to stimulate their economy Redesign roof to eliminate leaking, reduce cost and improve strength to weight ratio Main Deliverables • Working prototype of roof • Molds and fabrication tools designed with prototypes • Manufacturing plan for roofs to be made locally • Testing documentation

Problem Statement Constraints • Limited Local Resources • Technical Abilities of Personnel • Climate Differences • Safety • Cost • Using Existing Structures • Transportation Feasibility • Uses Local Materials

Use Scenarios • Roof design used on a current 4 walls house • Roof design used on a house with different dimensions than current 4 walls design • Roof design used on a house with different roof support structure

Use Scenario Building a new 4 -Walls House

Customer Requirements

Engineering Requirements

House of Quality

House of Quality Highlights Most Important ER Takeaways Supports a person Keeps cost low Roof tiles are easily transportable Meets waterproof standards Cost efficient Durable Light Weight

Benchmarking Weight (lbs) 16485 Roof 8. 55 (flat) 5. 04 ("round") Strength (lbs) Material Cost ($) 169 68. 10 (flat) 40. 15 ("round") Durablility Weatherproofin Feasability (Lifespan yrs. ) g (mph) (Low/Middle/High) N/A Low Zinc Roof . 73 lbs/ft^2 N/A 0. 87 per sqft 100 140 Middle Clay roof 10 N/A $3 per sq ft 100 125 Middle Shingle Roof 2 lbs/ft^2 Plywood 1. 22 per sq sheathing ft 15 90 -150 Low Thatched roof N/A Thatching cheap if vegetation readily available 8 to 14 High Middle Installation Resources Notes (2 workers working 20 hours for full roof) simple installation - loud, poor transportation/shippi insulation ng of material is techniques costly $10 1 -2 skilled worker, plywood resources Requires sheathing bugs may 1 skilled thatcher + be an issue, many helpers. Labor appears to intensive be in use already

Category 1 Variable nature of biochar and other The biochar concrete mix not being Strength to weight ratio is not components in concrete mix. Another Technical 9 9 cause is inconclusive or incomplete suitable optimal testing of mixes 2 Technical 3 Don't have access to local Solution is not adaptable to Resource resources, enviroment, and not able Nicaragua to do testing in local enivorment 4 Resource Not enough money/time to test everything we want to Uninhabitable home. Concrete mix is not optimal Cause Effects of biochar in mix not as 3 9 significant as intended for this purpose Importance ID The roof could be too heavy for the supports Effect Severity Risk Item Likelihood Risk Analysis Actions to Minimize Risk Owner Standardize test methods. 81 27 Design of experiments will be done for testing. Rory Perform FEA, test final Luqmen roofing test with supports Limited knowledge of Nicaraguan resources and environmental characteristics. 3 9 27 Research and work with customers to obtain knowledge of materials available Budget is low, not enough concrete research, unrealistic test plan 3 3 9 Efficient use of resources Mary and time 5 Safety Roof tiles falling into home Home is not safe at all Solution is flawed for environment (earthquakes, hurricanes, aging, trusses 3 9 etc. ) 6 Enviroment al Manufacturing byproducts contaminates environment Environmental contamination Bad resource management, improper 1 3 mixing, no standard work Jenn Design tiles and 27 attachments with this issue Carmen in mind 3 Create standard work for manufacturing Rory

Project Plan

Questions?