XLIX

Engineering Design Firm

9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223

Transmittal
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Section: 1201 032
To: Bill Lindsey
Edwin Cruz-Diaz
From: Lucas Kennedy, Evans Leinbach, Anthony Jordan, Jimmie Mckinney, Judith Faires, Ben Williams

Subject: Beam Team Technical Report

We are submitting: Memorandum Design Package Problem Set

Report - Draft Test Data Sheet Extra Credit

Report - Final Other: Enter Other Item

Date Description
Select Date Click here to enter text.
Select Date Click here to enter text.
Select Date Click here to enter text.

These are transmitted as checked below:

Individual Assignment Team Assignment -- Team No. ___3_____-_

For grading

For review/comment

Other: Enter Description

Team 3 1
 Beam Team Three Technical Report

Prepared for: ENGR 1201-032

Prepared by: Team 3; Lucas Kennedy, Evans Leinbach, Anthony Jordan, Jimmie Mckinney,
Judith Faires, Ben Williams

Date submitted: November 15th, 2017

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

Nov. 15, 2017

Team 3 2
Table of Contents:
-Summary
-Introduction
-Background Information
-Methods and Procedure
-Observations and Results
-Discussion
-Conclusion and Recommendations
-Reference
-Appendix

List of Figures:
-Beam Deflection
-I-Beam Example
-Results Table 1
-Results Graph 2
-Results Graph 3
-Results Graph 4

List of Tables:
-Results Table 1

Summary:

In order to obtain the experience necessary to prepare for a lifelong career in the field of
engineering, XLIX Management tasked students with a job to construct a structural beam along
the lines of the following constraints. The project subconsciously supplied students with proper
soft skills required to prosper in and out of the work place such as teamwork and
cooperativeness. As a requirement, the beam was to reach a maximum span of 18 inches and
weigh no more than 240 grams. It was to support an X-Axis load of 375 pounds with a maximum
deflection of 0.230 inches and a Y-Axis load of 150 pounds with a maximum deflection of 0.220
inches. The cost of the beam and all of its constituents was limited to $10.50 total.
Students took imperative precautions in order to result in a successful beam. The use of
a Gantt Chart was introduced to plot the timeline of the project entirely, along with the concept
of inserting calculations into an Excel spreadsheet with graphical representation. After creating
the Excel Beam Calculator, construction teams were able to put it to use in assisting with

Team 3 3
creating beam designs based on the parameters given. Upon the design of a satisfying beam,
teams were then able to complete the hands-on portion by obtaining properly measured
basswood from the Lumber Yard and constructing the beam of choice. It was suggested that
beyond construction of the beam, to allow the glue to dry for approximately two to three days
with the clamps to ensure its stability.
As a result, the beam was able to function as calculated and earned a grade of a 90. Its
X and Y deflections exceeded the calculations by surviving with a .138-inch X-Axis deflection
and a .070-inch deflection on the Y-Axis. As a recommendation for future references, teams
should frequently meet and communicate the project plan to guarantee that each member is
contributing towards a quality beam.

Introduction:

Problem Statement:
Construction teams were to build a structural beam of any type (Box, H, or I form) while meeting
the constraints of a maximum 240-gram weight limit, an X-Axis load of 375 pounds and a Y-Axis
load of 150 pounds. The X deflection could not exceed 0.230 inches and the Y deflection could
not exceed 0.220 inches. From support to support, the span of the beam could reach no longer
than 18 inches and produce a maximum cost of $10.50. Teams were to take into consideration
extra factors that could have played a role in the functioning of the beam such as the age of the
wood distributed.

Design Requirements, Assumption, & Constraints:

For this assignment, the beam itself had to be made out of basswood that can only be
purchased from the 1201 faculty. The beam itself must meet all of the above requirements with
the load being placed at the center, and must be created with cross sections that are
symmetrical about the centroid axis. Basswood is assumed to have a modulus of elasticity of
1.45 x 106 psi and a density of 28 lbm/ft3. The beam must be assembled with composite cross
sections and either has to be an I-beam, an H-beam or a box-beam. Failure to meet these
requirements will result in disqualification of testing. To insure the cost of materials is kept under
budget, a bill of sale must be included to see where the money went and how it was used. Any
use of a tool other than the ones in the Discovery Box (tool box) given by the instructor will lead
to disqualification of testing. The safety factor for the beam was three.

Background Information:

To get a proper understanding for this project, the beam theory along with the equations for it
had to be read and examined. The beam theory defines the moment of inertia as a function of
the geometry of the cross section of the beam perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (the length)

Team 3 4
of the beam (Beam Theory). Meaning that when applying a load onto a beam, the moment of
inertia will measure the resistance of the beam in the x-axis or y-axis. Another key aspect of the
beam dealt with the deflection. The beam theory definition for deflection is that deflection is the
amount of displacement or bending of the beam due to the applied loading (Beam Theory). To
calculate deflection, the concentrated load in the x-axis or the y-axis had to be known (P), the
span length (L) had to be know, along with the modulus of elasticity (E) and the moment for
inertia for the axis perpendicular to the load (I). Equation three and four demonstrate this
calculation. This was not the only equation involved either. There were multiple equations that
were used. For all four beam types, the inertia and the deflection equations were used in
calculating values for the x-axis and y-axis. The same equation for calculating deflection for the
x-axis and y-axis was used for each type of beam. However, the same cannot be said about the
equation for calculating inertia. Each type of beam required a different type of equation to
calculate the inertia. The equations below are derived from the beam theory:

Equation 1 (E.1): Equation one was used to find the inertia about the x-axis of an I-beam and
the y-axis of a H-beam.

1 1 3 22 2 3
=
12 12

Equation 2 (E.2): Equation two was used to find the inertia about the y-axis of an I-beam and
the x-axis of a H-beam.

21 1 3 2 2 3
= +
12 12

Equation 3 (E.3): Equation three was used to find the deflection about the x-axis. This equation
could have been used for any beam type.

3
=
48

Equation 4 (E.4): Equation four was used to find the deflection about the y-axis. This equation
could have been used for any type of beam.

3
=
48

Equation 5 (E.5): Equation five was used to find the inertia in the x-axis of a solid box beam.
The inertia of the y-axis could also be calculated using this formula. The only thing that would
change is the position of b and h. They would need to be switched.

Team 3 5
 3
=
12

Equation 6 (E.6): Equation six was used to find the inertia of a box beam in the x-axis. This
equation also allowed for the inertia of the y-axis to be calculated. For the inertia of the y-axis,
the b and the h would have to be switched with one another for both fractions.

1 1 3 2 2 3
=
12 12

Methods and Procedure:

To build a beam:
There are four types of beams; solid, box, H, and I Beams, each beam has its strengths and
weaknesses and deciding which one to use will require a group to prioritize and optimize their
wanted results. To calculate the displacement of the most common beam tested, the I-Beam,
the moment of inertia must first be found. Taking the dimensions of the I-beams web and
flanges, the moment of inertia can be found using the equation (E.1) for x-axis inertia and (E.2)
for y-axis inertia. Then, taking this inertia individually for x-axis and y-axis, the deflection in
inches can be found using the equation (E.3 or E.4). A beam must be able to hold a certain
weight without deflecting too much. In the constraints, there is also a weight maximum for the
beam itself. Using these parameters, a beam must be produced that is light and can carry a
weight in the center without deflecting too much. Once the parameters are chosen for the beam,
the beam must be built. When making an I-beam, the flanges must be glued to the web and
held in place by multiple evenly spread out clamps so that the glue dries and effectively hold the
flanges and beam together.

Team 3 6
Image 1: Beam Deflection
Image 2: I-Beam Example

To test the deflection of a beam, a machine applies pressure at the halfway point between the
span. The pressure is ramped up to the test weight in increments of 50lb. The deflection is
measured by a gadget under the beam. It is set at zero before pressure is applied.

Observations and Results:

The experimental results vary little when compared to the theoretical values. Some of the
parameter values given were the beam length, span length, x-axis load, and y-axis load. The
values as well as the theoretical and experimental values can be found below in Results Table 1
and Results Graph 1-4. The span length provided was 18 inches with 24 inches for the overall
beam length. The load for the x-axis was a mandatory 375lb. The load for the y-axis was 150lb.
The parameters tested were the mass of the beam, the x-axis deflection, y-axis deflection, and
the efficiency ratio. Theoretical mass for the beam calculated at 211.2g. When weighed, the
beam actually came out to be 215 grams. Deflection on the x-axis was calculated at 0.067
inches. When testing on the x-axis the deflection result was 0.138 inches. Y-axis deflection was
calculated at 0.087 inches. The experimental result for y-axis deflection was 0.07 inches. The
expected efficiency ratio was 1.20. Since the actual weight was higher than expected, the
efficiency ratio decreased to 1.11.

Table 1: Results
Beam Span X-axis Y-axis Mass X-axis Y-axis Efficiency
Length Length Load Load Deflection Deflection Ratio

Team 3 7
 Theoretical

211.2g 0.067 0.087 1.20

24 18 375lb 150lb
inches inches
Experimental

215g 0.138 0.07 1.11

%Difference

1.80% 51.45% 19.54% 7.5%

Graph 1: Beam Mass

Graph 2: X-axis Deflection

Team 3 8
Graph 3: Y-axis Deflection

Graph 4: Efficiency Ratio

Team 3 9
Discussion:

The result for x-axis deflection was 0.0138 inches. This value was higher than expected
(0.067in), but did not surpass the maximum x-axis deflection requirement of 0.230 inches. The
result from the y-axis test was 0.07 inches. The experiment value was lower than the expected
0.087 inches. The difference in theoretical and experimental values for the x-axis deflection was
probably do to calculation errors. Differences between the two values are too great to be
negligible. Differences in Y-axis deflection most likely stem from the disparity between the ideal
characteristics of basswood and the attributes of the basswood lumber used. Because of this it
should be assumed that the difference in value is negligible. The constraints for cost and weight
had a major effect on beam design and selection. With a cost limit of $10.50 and a weight
constraint of 240g, building a larger and heavier beam that would pose little deflection was
impossible. Compromises for these constraints had to made to construct a working beam.
Maintaining an efficiency ratio between 1.10 and 1.20 was another imposing constraint.
Because of this ratio the selected beam design had to be light enough to have a weight ratio
between these two values. Some other option that couldve been taken during the design
process include: designing for an efficiency ratio under 1.10 and/or constructing a box beam. If
the beam was designed for an efficiency ratio under 1.10 then the beam could have been
heavier which would have made it sturdier. A box beam could have also been used for its sturdy
design, but would have ultimately been heavier and more expensive. It is recommended to
design a beam for cost effectiveness and efficiency. Since neither of the axes deflection values
were over their allotted limits it implies that the test was a success. These results are important
because it means that a cost effective and relatively light weight beam can be construct even
with imposing constraints.

Team 3 10
Conclusion and Recommendations:

The beam that was designed and constructed by team three was successful. By analyzing and
comparing the theoretical values with the experimental values in Table 1, the mass, the
deflection in the x-axis and y-axis and the efficiency ratio met the guidelines and requirements
for the beam. There are many takeaways and lessons learned by doing this project. One lesson
being that there were many different ways to design this beam that would have met the
requirements. Some of the designs could have been better and some could have been worse.
Another lesson being to construct the beam a couple days before the test date. Doing this, gives
the beam plenty of time to harden and dry with the glue. With that being said, the
recommendations for this project would be to plan early, construct early and design as many
possible designs that meet the requirements. Having a lot of designs to choose from allows for
the best possible design to be made.

Reference:

1. 1201 Faculty, Beam Theory, (Pre-class readings, ENGR 1201 Canvas Site, UNC
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, accessed 14 November 2017).

Appendix:

Equation 1: Beam Inertia about the x-axis: derived from reference 1

Equation 2: Beam Inertia about the y-axis: derived from reference 1
Equation 3: Beam deflection about the x-axis: derived from reference 1
Equation 4: Beam deflection about the y-axis: derived from reference 1
Equation 5: Beam inertia about the x-axis: derived from reference 1
Equation 6: Beam inertia about the x-axis: derived from reference 1
Image 1: Beam Deflection: derived from reference 1
Image 2: Beam Example: derived from reference 1
Table 1- p.8: Data listed in table
Graph 1- p.8: Technical mass: 211.2 g; Actual mass: 215.0 g
Graph 2- p.9: X-Axis Deflection of Beam- Theoretical Deflection: 0.067 in; Actual Deflection:
0.138 in
Graph 3- p.9: Y-Axis Deflection of Beam- Theoretical Deflection: 0.087 in; Actual Deflection:
0.070 in
Graph 4- p.10: Efficiency Ratio (Required mass divided by actual mass)- Theoretical: 1.20;
Actual: 1.11

Team 3 11