To: Beams United

From: The Beam Team (Wesley Deal, Jordan Higgins, and Michael Segura)
Date: April 4, 2014
Subject: Structural Beam Project
Team 1 (The Beam Team) was assigned to design and test a prototype beam that can
withstand a load of 400 pounds of force on the x-axis and 200 pounds on the y-axis. Its mass
must be at or under 265 grams. The range of acceptable deflection is from 0.08 inches to 0.270
inches on the x-axis and from 0.05 inches to 0.250 inches on the y-axis. Cost is limited to
$11.50. The cross-section must be within an area of 2 inches by 2 inches.
Much preparation was done before the prototype was posted. Each member of the group had to
create an individual project plan using Microsoft Project. These plans were in the form of a
Gantt Chart. Each team member determined deadlines for each required part of the structural
beam project and set time frames to work. Then each group member researched beam theory
and various uses. Three different possible beam configurations were included for consideration
as well, along with diagrams from Microsoft Visio. A Beam Excel Calculator was also needed to
calculate possible dimensions for the three beams, among displaying other graphs related to
beams and deflection. The Beam Excel Calculator is used to determine mass, cross-section
area, volume, possible moments of inertia on the x and y axes and deflection of the x and y
axes. Inputs were total length, length between supports, density, modulus of elasticity, load
forces in both directions, safety factor, and cross-section dimensions based upon beam type.
Early completion of the calculator helped completion of the design packages. A decision matrix
was used to determine the best of the three beam configurations. This beam was submitted to
the team along with other team members bests. The team beam design package included the
research done by the entire team, presented the best possible beam designs from each
member of the team and included another decision matrix to determine the best of the best to
be tested. Once the beam was chosen, proper calculations were submitted to the firm in order
to receive wood for construction. Ample time was given for construction so the glue cured to
maximum strength.
During testing, the beam withstood a load of 400 pounds of force on the x-axis and 200 pounds
of force on the y-axis and was within the deflection ranges, respectively. All restrictions were
followed. This beam design is very successful and is capable of a 1.7 safety factor. This beam is
not optimum, as there is a 49% difference in the actual X deflection vs. design deflection, 19%
difference in the Y deflection, and 5% difference in the mass. Still, this beam performed well
within tolerable ranges and handled all loads with ease.













[Type here]

1




Analysis of Design Process for Structural Beams






By The Beam Team;
Jordan Higgins
Michael Segura
Wesley Deal






ENGR 1201-002






Date submitted:
April 7th, 2014







We have neither given nor received any unauthorized help on this assignment, nor witnessed any violation of the
UNC Charlotte Code of Academic Integrity.


Date: 4/7/2014
[Type here]

2

Table of Contents:
I. Summary.. Pg. 3
A. Project Overview
B. Recommendations
C. Lessons Learned

II. Introduction. Pg. 4
A. Problem Statement
B. Design and Performance Requirements
C. Constraints
D. Assumptions

III. Background Information. Pg. 5
A. Beam Theory and Additional Research
B. Base equations

IV. Methods and Procedures. Pg. 7
A. Steps Needed for Successful Project and Equipment Used

V. Observations and Results. Pg. 12
A. Given Values, Calculated Values, Actual (true )Values, Percent Difference, and
Results

VI. Discussion Pg. 13
A. Difference between Calculated vs. Actual Values
B. Implications of Results and Recommendations

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations Pg. 13
A. Project overview, Results, Recommendations
VIII. References Pg. 14
A. Works Cited

IX. Appendix Pg. 15
A. Appendix A. Calculated Equations for Constructed Beam
B. Appendix B. Beam Calculator with proposed beam Dimensions
C. Appendix C. Visio Diagrams for Alternative Beams
D. Appendix D. Beam Test Data Sheet





[Type here]

3

List of Figures
Figure 1. A Center-Loaded, Simply Supported Configuration
Figure 2. An Example of a Visio Diagram for a Hollow Box Configuration
Figure 3. Diagram for the Chosen Beam
Figure 4. Beginning of Beam Construction
Figure 5. Load Force Being Applied to the Beam During Testing
List of Tables
Table 1. Example of a Bill of Materials
Table 2. Example of an Individual Decision Matrix
Table 3. Engineering Calculations and Cost Estimates
Table 4. Team Decision Matrix for Each Best Beam
Table 5. Percent Difference for Actual vs. Calculated Values

I. Summary

A. Project Overview

Team 1 (The Beam Team) was assigned to design and test a prototype beam that can withstand
a load of 400 pounds of force on the x-axis and 200 pounds on the y-axis. Its mass must be at or
under 265 grams. The range of acceptable deflection is from 0.08 inches to 0.270 inches on the x-
axis and from 0.05 inches to 0.250 inches on the y-axis. Cost is limited to $11.50. The cross-section
must be within an area of 2 inches by 2 inches.
A project plan was first created to outline the critical path of design using Microsoft Project.
Research was done to understand beam theory and uses. Individual design packages were created
by each team member, using a combination of Microsoft Word and Visio, that outlined 3 beam
options, calculations for said beams, and a decision matrix to determine the best beam. A team
design package was then created to combine all research done, compare these best beams from
each individual design package via calculations and dimensions, and use another decision matrix to
determine which beam would perform best overall. An Excel Calculator was also created by each
team member to aid in designing beams and provide a quick reference to dimensions. Jordans I-
beam was selected with dimensions as follows: The flanges = 1 5/8 x 1/4 each, webbing = 1 1/8 x
5/16, length = 24, length between supports = 21. The modulus of elasticity = 1.46 x 10
6
psi,
density = 28 lb
m
/ft
3
. Wood was glued and clamped together and was allowed to cure for maximum
strength.
Testing was done with a center loaded, simply support configuration apparatus that applied the
designated load, given by XLIX Engineering Design Firm, to assure the beam would perform
successfully. After testing, results were as expected; the selected I-beam withstood a force of 400
pounds on the x-axis and 200 pounds on the y-axis and was within deflection ranges for each. Actual
[Type here]

4

mass was measured under design mass, but could have been lowered further and so was not as
efficient as the optimum beam.


B. Recommendation
Recommendations for the future would be to consider given and unknown factors when
constructing the beam. The beams weight was higher than calculated because The Beam Team did
not take into account the unseen factor that the glue used to construct the beam would add to the
weight of the beam. The second recommendation would be to know that the given values, such as
density and modulus of elasticity, are true values, not averages. These values may vary throughout
the wood, and caution must be taken.
C. Lessons Learned

The Beam Team learned that there should always be a back-up plan. After calculations were
made, it was discovered that not all wood dimensions were in stock. The needed wood was out of
stock for the primary and alternative beams, so a new prototype had to be quickly proposed.
Another lesson learned was to take into account everything that was used during construction of
the beam to make sure that you stay in parameters (e.g. amount and weight of glue used).

II. Introduction

A. Problem Statement
The Beam Team was selected by XLIX Engineering Design Firm to design and construct a
structural beam prototype for Flexible Beams, Inc. The goal of this prototype is to provide the most
efficient use of resources to handle various loads.
B. Design and Performance Requirements

The beam was tested by given loads on both the X and Y axes. The load applied in the X axis was
400 pounds force, and the load applied in the Y axis was 200 pounds force. Deflection in the X axis
must range between 0.08 inches and 0.270 inches. Deflection in the Y axis must range between 0.05
inches and 0.250 inches

C. Assumptions

Factors that can be assumed; Basswood material is not fully isotropic, i.e. its modulus of
elasticity of the wood may fluctuate through its volume. The basswood is initially straight and
doesnt bow or curve, where in reality, no plank of wood is perfectly straight and square. The
material is homogenous and possesses the same physical properties through its whole volume. The
load will be applied directly on the center of the beam, at exactly 400 lb
f
.

D. Constraints

. The prototype must not have a mass larger than 265 grams. Cost was limited at $11.50. Cross-
Section Area must be contained in an area of 2 inches x 2 inches. Beams that exceed this
requirement will not be tested. A safety factor of 1.7 was designed.
[Type here]

5

Beams must be designed so that the cross section is in symmetry with centroidal axes. Cross
sections must have two or more pieces held together. Glue joints cost $.50 each. Tools were limited
to clamps, utility knife, Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue, and those given by the instructor. All others
were prohibited.
Constant variables include length, density, elasticity, and load force. A range of moments of
inertia were derived from the deflection range given. From this range, possible dimensions were
calculated for the cross-section, and the best design was chosen to meet these constraints. To do
this, a beam calculator was created in Excel. Values could be input to calculate cross-section area,
volume, mass, moments of inertia, and deflections. After calculating these values along with cost, a
decision matrix was used to determine which beam configuration was best for given constraints.

III. Background Information

A. Beam Theory and Additional Research
The research and information that The Beam Team needed to look up involved what beams are
generally used for, why a prototype is used, potential safety factors, what are the different types of
beams, how beams are used all throughout the world, and what is a technical report. To start, a
beams purpose is to structurally support buildings, vehicles, railroads, etc. A beams main purpose
is to reverse bending and be able to support whatever is loaded upon it (Unrestrained Beam
Design).
The purpose of a prototype is to allow an experimental and visual test and be able to accurately
determine if the design is flawed in any way. It also allows the team or company to fix a potential
error that could become a hazard to the public. These hazards can be physical or not. With the help
of Synthx.com it showed many different types of prototypes can be used for the implementation of
a design. (Product Development Process). Some on the website were just simple visuals. Some
were highly polished, fragile representations. Others were functional designs that work properly
but still do not look like the finished product. Others looked and function like the finished design
should. There are alternatives to prototyping. For example, some projects and systems can be
complex and were built only to save time and money. It is shown that prototypes are used in
evaluating different options of a particular design or idea. (Belver-Aguilar)
In order to make products safe for public use, safety factors must be implemented. Safety
factors are utilized to ensure that a design doesnt fail in real world situations due to unknown and
fluctuating factors, and even known, uncontrollable factors. Mechanicalengineeringblog.com
defines a safety factor as a factor that is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical
design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process (Factor of Safety, FOS). Factors of
safety are used to account for a range of uncertain variables and ensure the product can
compensate for anything, whether it is error, natural disaster, material deficiencies, etc. Any design
or product that has an ability to cause serious loss (financial, injury, etc.) uses a safety factor of at
least four but typically ten. Designs not listed as serious are typically used with a safety factor of 2
(Factor of Safety, FOS). Safety factors have the ability to affect multiple aspects of a product.
Stronger material or even the use of more material may be implemented, but will potentially affect
cost, looks, and size. The higher the safety factor of the product the more these effects will be
increased (Safety Factor). Rather than base the design of the beam on a single calculated factor of
safety, a series of calculations in which each parameter is varied systematically over a credible range
is used to determine the overall factor of safety (Harr).
There are a variety of beams. Materials for beams range from wood to plastic. Beams come in
different forms, such as the solid beam, hollow beam, I beam, H beam, T beam, Double I beam, etc.
[Type here]

6

The purpose of the beam varies as well, such as mounting to cantilever beams. Metal beams are
used in place of wood beams because of safety factors. Some typical loads for metal beams can be
found at www.EngineeringToolbox.com. Loads vary from 6900 lbs (8 in x 4 in x 18 ft.) to 48,600 lbs.
(8 in x 6.5 in x 8 ft.) ("W-Steel Beams - Allowable Loads). Wooden beams are common in small
buildings and homes. Elasticity of wood is often unpredictable. Wood has a unit that measures F
b
=
allowable stress in extreme fiber in bending, psi, or bending stress, which accounts for fibers within
the wood. For wood, twisting is often an issue. If the height to width ratio is not correct, a beam
can easily start to twist (Nolan 2010).
There are ranges for beams outside of building and structures. Railroad rails are in actuality
infinitely long I-beam designed to hold a certain load, in this case the weight of the train, and have a
certain deflection (Lu et al. 2009). Another use of beams is a cantilever beam in a micro-sensor.
These are microscopic sensors that use one or multiple cantilever beams, and measures deflection
(vibrations).
The purpose of technical reports is to convey information and findings from research and
prototypes. Colorado State University says it best by declaring a technical report includes research
about technical concepts as well as graphical depictions of designs and data. A technical report also
follows a strict organization. This way, when other engineers read what you write, they can quickly
locate the information that interests them the most (Kowalski 2012). A well written technical
report employs passive voice, is specific, has outlined processes, and communicates the context of
what was tested and what variables were changed. As a practicing engineer, it is essential to learn
to convey ideas to managers, other engineers, and customers. From there, communication abilities
will determine the success of an engineer, potentially even more so than technical exercise.
(Engineering Report Writing 2003).
B. Base equations
In addition to the research done, the following base equations were used to assure that team
ones beam met all requirements and constraints.

To find the cross sectional area of the beam the following equation is used:
(Eq. 1)
Where b is the base measured in inches and h is the height measure in inches. For the I-beam
designed, the cross-section area equation was derived from this.

To find the volume of the beam the following equation is used:
(Eq. 2)
or
(Eq. 3)
For equation 2, b is the base measured in inches, h is the height measured in inches, and l is the
length measured in inches. For equation 3, A is the area measure in inches squared and l is the
length measured in inches.

[Type here]

7

The volume conversion used to get the correct units in cubic inches is:

(Eq. 4)
The formula for density is as followed:

(Eq. 5)
Where D is density measure in lbs per square feet, V is the volume in square feet and m is the
mass measured in pounds mass.
The mass conversion formula is as follows:

(Eq. 6)
The equation for Inertia is as follows:

(Eq. 7)
where b is the base measured in inches and h is the height measured in inches. The formula
used to find deflection is:

(Eq. 8)
where is measured in inches, P is the load measured in pounds force, L is the length between
supports measured in inches, E is the modulus of elasticity measured in pounds force per square inch,
and I is the moment of inertia measured in inches
4
.
IV. Methods and Procedures

A. Steps Needed for Successful Project and Equipment Used
Tools used throughout the design process included the following: Microsoft Word, Excel,
Project, Visio, clamps, a utility knife, and Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue. The beam was placed on a
center-loaded, simply-supported configuration (Figure 1).
Much preparation was done before construction even
began. Keep in mind that most every assignment included a
statement of academic integrity. A project plan was created
as an overview of the various deliverables so it could be
viewed as a whole assignment, rather than individual
assignments. A Gantt chart was developed to outline the
critical path this process would take. This outlined every
detail of the process and included due dates, order of
completion, milestones, and duration of task. This specific
Gantt charts critical path included, in order, the project plan
itself, WebWork, Individual Design Packages, Excel
Worksheet, Team Design Package, Construction, Test Data
Sheet, Technical Report, and Performance evaluation. Some of these tasks included subtasks, such
as the design packages, construction, and technical report. Milestones were assigned to the
individual design package submission, team design package submission, construction, and technical
report submission. Each team member also completed WebWork to understand beam theory better
and have the knowledge of how certain calculations were derived and used.
Figure 1: A center-loaded,
simply supported configuration
L = 21"
P = 0 to 600 lb
f

[Type here]

8

1.5 in
1.5 in.
in.
in.
in in
1 in.
Each team member created their own design package. This design package included the
following: a problem statement, beam theory research, a H-beam, I-beam, and hollow box beam
prototype options , base equations, calculations for each option, Visio diagrams for each option, a
bill of materials, a table gathering together all calculated variables and cost, and a decision matrix to
determine the best option. The problem statement listed the objective and constraints, as stated in
the introduction; to create a beam made of basswood to support 400 pounds of load force on the X
axis and 200 pounds on the Y axis, while maintaining deflection in a range of .08 to .27 inches on the
X axis and .05 to .25 inches on the Y axis. The length was limited to 24 inches total and 21 inches
between supports. The wood density was 28 pounds per cubic foot. The modulus of elasticity was
1.46 x 10
6
psi. A safety factor of 1.7 was determined; for that would give what was thought would be
the efficiency ratio. Unfortunately these two values were not the same, and as such thought process
that went into the safety factor was skewed. This will be covered more in depth in the observations
section. Then, research was done as outlined above. Research conducted included how prototypes
are used in design, the alternatives to physical prototypes, what safety factors are, how safety
factors are used in design, how safety factors affect design and cost, typical loads used in structural
beam design, examples of beam theory outside of building and construction industry, and how
engineering reports are used in the development of a proposal to provide specific services or
materials ("Beam Project Description" December 19, 2013).
After research was done and reported, 3 beam options were proposed. This included a visio
diagram of each to visualize what it will look like, as well as dimensions decided for the cross-section
and background of why this configuration was proposed.
Equations followed to provide calculations for each option
for cross-section area, volume, mass, moment of
inertia on the x and y axis, deflection on the x and
y axis, and safety factor (moment of
inertia and deflection on the x and y
axis). Base equations used are as listed
above in the Background Information
section.

After calculations were made for
each beam, a bill of materials was
created for each beam to determine cost.



Table 1: Example of a Bill of Materials
Prototype 3 Design (I-beam) Bill of Materials
Building Materials Quantity Price Cost
x 1 5/8 x 24 Basswood 2 $2.93 $5.86
5/16 x 7/8 Basswood 1 $2.08 $2.08
Glue Joint 2 $0.50 $1.00
Total $8.94

Then a table was constructed that pulled together all important data for each option; mass
measured in pounds and grams, volume measured in cubic feet and cubic inches, total cost, X axis
inertia measured in inches
4
and deflection measured in inches, and Y axis inertia and deflection with
Figure 2: An example of a Visio diagram
for a hollow box configuration
[Type here]

9

the same units. Following was a decision matrix. Information could be easily assessed from the
previous table and various factors were considered. Each team members decision matrix contained
different criteria and weights. An example is as follows:

Table 2: Example of an Individual Decision Matrix
1 = Adjustments Needed 2 Meets Expectations 3 Exceeds Expectations
Weight Beam #1 H-Beam Box Beam #2 Hollow Box Beam #3 I-Beam
Cost 23% 3 .69 2 .46 3 .69
Deflection X-Axis 23% 1 .23 3 .69 1 .23
Deflection Y-Axis 23% 3 .69 3 .69 2 .46
Weight 23% 3 .69 2 .46 2 .46
Safety Factor > 1.5 8% 1 .08 3 .24 3 .24
Total 100% 2.38 2.54 2.08

Following the decision matrix were conclusions on beam configurations options and factors in
the decision matrix, as well as details for safety factors. Lastly a works cited page was assembled to
reference all sources within the design package.
At the same time that individual design packages were being created, a working excel calculator
was created as well. This excel calculator did not have to be complete initially, but simply working.
This was done so values could be inserted to variables to determine what the optimum dimensions
were for given configurations and constraints. Other parts of the complete calculator included a
graph of deflection vs force for a solid yellow pine beam (1.5 inches x 2 inches) for a range of loads
from 0 to 600, increasing an increment of 25. Lastly, a second graph was made for the deflection vs.
Load position along the beam for the best configuration. This ranged from 0 to 21 inches (support
to support), and an increment of 0.5 inches was chosen. Diagrams were included on every sheet of
the calculator. Inputs were shaded as well to differentiate between inputs and calculations.
After each individual design packages were completed, work began on the team design package.
This design package employed the same procedure as the individual, with a few differences. First,
research was combined between all team members. Also, the only beam configurations mentioned
were the bests chosen from each individual package. Calculations were shown for each of these
bests similar to the individual design packages. Each configuration had a bill of materials. Another
table was created to show results of mass, volume, cost, inertia, and deflection.
















[Type here]

10

Table 3: Engineering Calculations and Cost Estimates
Prototypes
Calculated
Mass
Calculated
Volume
Total
Cost
of
Wood
and
Glue
Joints
($)
X-Axis
Calculations
Y-Axis
Calculations
Lb
m
grams ft^3 in^3 I (in
4
) (in.)* I (in
4
)
(in.)*
Prototype
1
0.486 220.496 0.01736 30.00 11.00 0.339 0.156 0.339 0.078
Prototype
2
0.453 205.337 0.01617 27.94 9.11 0.425 0.124 0.182 0.145
Prototype
3
0.422 191.556 0.01508 26.06 8.94 0.279 0.190 0.182 0.145

A second decision matrix was created to suggest a best prototype from each team members
bests. Safety was the biggest factor, as shown below:

Table 4: Team Decision Matrix for Each Best Beam
Michaels Beam Jordans Beam Wesleys Beam
Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Deflection
(x)
.2 5 1 5 1 4 .8
Deflection
(y)
.15 5 .75 4 .6 4 .6
Cost .15 3 .45 4 .6 5 .75
Weight .1 3 .3 4 .4 5 .5
Safety** .4 3 1.2 4 1.6 1 .4
Total: 3.7 4.2 3.05
**Safety factor is 1.7. Load force is multiplied by this, therefore deflection is as well.

Lastly, concluding thoughts were conveyed. These included which prototype was best based
upon the decision matrix, information behind the criteria and weights, and why chosen prototype
was ultimately decided upon. Another works cited page followed to reference which sources were
used and where they came from.
Once the team design package was complete, Jordans I-beam configuration was chosen.
Construction began with gathering
materials. The I-beam along with
calculations were presented to the firm
in order to obtain materials.
Unfortunately, the design chosen
contained materials which were
currently out of stock, as was with
Figure 3: Diagram for the chosen beam
24"
I-Beam top view
1.75"
I-Beam side view
24"
0.25"
0.25"
1.25"
1.75"
0.3125"
Flanges
1.75"
1.25"
0.3125"
0.25"
I-Beam
Webbing
[Type here]

11

alternatives. New dimensions were quickly inputted into the Excel calculator, and a new design was
decided upon. This design was very close to the chosen I-beam configuration, with a slightly shorter
and thicker webbing. This allowed for a similar moment of inertia and deflection on the X axis
without changing anything significant on the Y axis. Once this configuration was approved, materials
were obtained. No wood is perfect, so careful inspection of materials was done. Wood was chosen
based upon how straight it was in both dimensions and based upon whether or not the actual
dimensions were what was stated. Preparation for construction included marking where the center
of the flanges were so the webbing could be glued evenly. Ample Elmers wood glue was applied
between one flange and the webbing. The beam was then clamped with supports on one end and
was then adjusted in the center, clamped, then adjusted on the other end, and clamped. Glue was
allowed to cure for 24 hours before repeating the process to the other flange. The second gluing
session was also allowed to cure for over 24 hours, allowing for maximum bond strength.
A test data sheet was printed off and
dimensions as well as other information was
written down before testing. The Beam Team was
second in line for testing. A center loaded, simply
support configuration apparatus was used to test
the I-beam. The I-beam was supported over a
span of 21 inches and force was applied on the X
axis to the beam up to the design load stated. A
force was then applied on the Y axis up to the
design load stated for that direction. The beam
was then relieved and returned to The Beam
Team.






V. Observation and Results

A. Given Values, Calculated Values, Actual (true) Values, Percent Difference, and Results.
After testing the beam, the results were within the constraints that XLIX Engineering Design Firm
provided to the team. Table 5 displays the given deflection parameters, the calculated values versus
the actual values of deflections on the X and Y axis, and the calculated mass of the beam versus its
actual mass. The table correspondingly delivers a percent difference for each parameter. This value
is given by the equation:

The true deflection for the beam on the X-axis
was 0.185 inches, which was only 0.061 inches
greater than what was calculated, but still in the
constraints of 0.08 inches 0.270 inches. The
percent difference in the x-axis deflection values was
49.19%. The beams Y-axis true deflection was 0.173
inches while its calculated value was 0.145 inches,
Figure 4: Beginning of beam
construction
[Type here]

12

but still in the constraints of 0.05 inches to 0.250 inches. The Y-axis true and calculated values gave
a percent error of 19.31%. Observed from testing on both axes was that actual deflection, with its
respective load, was greater than the team had calculated and expected. Another observation was
that the actual mass of the beam, which was 215 grams, was higher than the calculated mass of
205.3 grams. The error made in calculating the mass of the beam was that the team did not factor in
the weight of the glue that would be used to construct the beam which resulted in a percent
difference of 4.72. However, even with the mass miscalculation the beam weigh still did not surpass
the constraint of 265 grams.
A safety factor of 1.7 was determined, for that
would give what was thought would be the efficiency
ratio [
(

)
(

)
] . Design load and design mass were confused for a safety factor, and
so this equation was thought to determine safety factor. An efficiency ratio of 1.5 granted full
points, so a safety factor of 1.7 was determined. Since design load and design mass ended up being
the given constraints instead of our safety factor designed constraints, the efficiency ratio turned
out to be just below 1.25.

Table 5. Percent Difference for Actual vs. Calculated Values

Constraints Calculated Values Actual Values
Percent
Difference
X-axis Deflection 0.08 in. - 0.270 in. 0.124 in 0.182 in 49.19%
Y-axis Deflection 0.05 in. - 0.250 in 0.145 in 0.173 in 19.31%
Mass of Beam 265 grams 205.3 grams 215 grams 4.72%

VI. Discussion

A. Difference between Calculated vs. Actual Values
The achieved results are as follows: deflection on the X axis is 0.182 inches, deflection on the Y
axis is 0.173 inches, and mass is 215 grams. These results were successful since they met all
requirements and constraints, but not optimal to the teams expectations. The deflection on both
the x and y axis and total mass of the beam stayed within the given parameter. Although the results
were successful, the teams calculated values for each parameter were considerably off from the
actual test values. This realization showed that the team has room to improve in its design process
and that there are areas where error could possibly be eliminated. Not taking every factor into
account could easily make the calculated and actual values differ. This increases the room for error
and makes it very difficult to guarantee accuracy. In future projects, it would be good team practice
to have each team member triple check all the work and calculations. This would be a good check
and balance for the whole project as would help the team members have an overall understanding
of the project.
B. Implications of Results and Recommendation
Even though the results were in good standing, there are unseen factors that could have been
corrected. The woods modulus of elasticity may have not been truly accurate which would also
give an inaccurate deflection calculation. In the mass calculation, by neglecting the weight of the
Figure 5: Load force being applied to
the beam during testing
[Type here]

13

glue, calculations were inaccurate even more. The actual mass of the beam was 10 grams greater
that what was calculated. Even though the team did not take the weight of the glue into
consideration, the other factor that couldve have affected the calculations was the given density of
the basswood. Just as the modulus of elasticity, if the given density was not a true value and more of
an average value then calculating the true weight of the beam would have been impossible. To
reduce future error, glue needed for construction should be weighed and applied to the
calculations. The wood supplier should also be asked to assure the density is correct.

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations

A. Project overview, Results, Recommendations
Team 1 successfully designed, constructed, and tested a beam prototype that would be
successful in the parameters given by XLIX Engineering Design Firm. The results were as follows:
deflection on the X axis is 0.182 inches, deflection on the Y axis is 0.173 inches, and mass is 215
grams. The results achieved were satisfactory to theory. The beam constructed did have a larger
mass than designed, but performed well. The design chosen was not optimum, as mass could have
been smaller while staying within deflection range. It is recommended to include this in
consideration when choosing a beam configuration. Reducing mass would also reduce cost. It is also
recommended to keep in mind that density and modulus of elasticity are averages, not true values.
With material such as wood, many values will differentiate between sections. Lessons learned
include looking at the overall total of mass, which includes glue joints, adjusting for expected
unknowns, and starting on assignments ahead of schedule to use for other assignments (for
example, the Excel calculator).
In conclusion, this was a very educational experience and provided much insight into beam
theory, design, calculation, and implementation.
VIII. References

A. Works cited
American Wood Council, "Wood Beams - Load Tables." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.awc.org/pdf/wsdd/c2b.pdf.
Belver-Aguilar, C. "Design, Construction and Calibration of a First Prototype of Beam Position System for
Hadron Therapy Facilities.: 876
Concept & Prototype Development, "Safety Factor." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.conceptandprototype.com/cpd/safety-factor.
Davies, J. Michael. "Some Applications of Generalized Beam Theory." : 479
The Engineering Toolbox, "W-Steel Beams - Allowable Loads." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/w-steel-beam-uniform-load-d_1722.html.
[Type here]

14

Harr, M.E. "Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering." New York: McGraw-Hill. (1987)
Institute for Steel Development and Growth, "Unrestrained Beam Design." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.steel-insdag.org/TeachingMaterial/Chapter11.pdf.
Kowalski, Dawn. Colorado State University, "Engineering Technical Reports." Last modified 2012.
Accessed March 24, 2014. http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=88.
Lu, Sheng, Richard Arnold, and Shane Farritor. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Nebraska Lincoln, "ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOAD AND DEFLECTION IN RAILROAD
TRACK STRUCTURE." Last modified 2008. Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.arema.org/files/library/2008_Conference_Proceedings/On_the_Relationship_Betw
een_Load_and_Deflection_in_Railroad_Track_Substructure_2008.pdf.
Makki, Asaad, and Dave Beard. Ford Motor Co., "How Ford engineers cut costs and prototypes with
CAE." Last modified August 28, 2012. Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279846.
Mechanical Engineering Blog, "Factor of Safety, FOS." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.mechanicalengineeringblog.com/tag/safety-factor/.
Nolan, Richard. Continuing Education and Development, Inc., "Determining Allowable Design Values for
Wood." Pg. 34. Last modified 2010. Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/allowable design values for wood.pdf.
Open Computing Facility at University of California, Berkeley. "ENGINEERING REPORT WRITING."
Accessed March 23, 2014.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~anandk/math191/Technical%20Writing.pdf
Synthesis Engineering Services Inc., "The Product Development Process." Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.synthx.com/articles/pdp5-prototype.html.
Vashist, Sandeep Kumar. Azonano, "A Review of Microcantilevers for Sensing Applications." Last
modified June 18, 2007. Accessed March 24, 2014.
http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1927
[Type here]

15

XLIX Engineering Design Firm, "Beam Project Description." Last modified December 19, 2013. Accessed
April 8, 2014. https://moodle2.uncc.edu/pluginfile.php/320101/course/section/178568/Beam
Project Description.pdf.


IX. Appendix

A. Appendix A. Calculated Equations for Constructed Beam

f
b
= 1.625 in
f
h
= 0.25 in
w
h
= 1.125 in
w
b
= 0.3125 in
Area:

Volume:

Mass:

Inertia (x):

Inertia (y):

Deflection (x):

[Type here]

16

Deflection (y):

Safety Factor (x)

Safety Factor (y)

[Type here]

17

B. Appendix B. Beam Calculator with proposed beam Dimensions


C. Appendix C. Visio diagrams for alternative beams

[Type here]

18








D. Appendix C. Beam Test Data Sheet










[Type here]

19