TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:

Chris McDaniel Mitchell Weir, Ali Redha, Travis Curran, Xue Wang November 8, 2013 Beam Project Technical Report - Cover Memo

The purpose of this project was to design a beam that could withstand a certain amount of force without breaking. There were certain requirements it had to fulfill. The beam had to be 24 inches long, could not cost over $10.50, or weigh more than 260 grams. On the x and y-axis, 350 lbf and 300 lbf were placed on the beam, respectively. It had to withstand the force with deflection ranging from 0.06 inches to 0.250 inches on the x-axis and a deflection ranging from 0.04 inches to 0.230 inches on the y-axis. Before the project truly began, a project plan was created by each individual on the team. It showed how the project was intended to be completed. The beam project was done in steps, mostly independently. To develop ideas for possible beams, a design package was produced by every member. It included the problem statement, research done on beam theory, design ideas, calculations, and an individual design matrix. The team design package came from combining different parts of each individual design package. A WeBWork assignment focusing on beams had to be completed. It helped each team member to develop a better grasp on beam calculations, a vital aspect of this project. Creating an Excel worksheet was another requirement. Using the worksheet, it was possible to quickly make the necessary calculations. In addition, the graphs made according to the worksheet demonstrated a relationship between deflection and other parameters. From there, each beam designed was carefully considered by the team before the best and final beam was chosen. Afterwards, the beam was created using bass wood according to the design parameters. Based on the testing results, the project was successfully completed. It met the required specifications and did not break under the predetermined load on either axes. The beam cost $10.10 and weighed 205 grams. The deflection on the x-axis was within range at 0.175 inches. The deflection on the y-axis was also within range at 0.150 inches. After the initial test, it was optional to have the beam retested to determine the maximum load it could handle with breaking. The result was 550 grams. The beam achieved its designated requirements and even dealt with more. Sincerely, Mitchell Weir, Ali Redha, Travis Curran, Xue Wang

Beam Project
November 9, 2013 ENGR 1201-091 Chris McDaniel

Contributing Engineers Travis Curran Ali Redha Mitchell Weir Xue Wang

I have neither given nor received any unauthorized help on this assignment, nor witnessed any violation of the UNC Charlotte Code of Academic Integrity. Travis Curran Mitchell Weir Xue Wang Ali Redha

November 9, 2013

Table of Contents Cover Memo Title page Table of Contents/ Tables and Figures Summary Introduction Background Methods Observation and Results Discussion Conclusion and recommendation Appendix 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 7

Tables and Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Table 1 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Table 2 4 4 6 7 8 8 8

Summary During the course of this project, a beam was constructed to meet a set of given requirements. The constraints we were bound to included cost, weight, and size. Also the beam had to support a specific load on each axis while remaining within the set deflection limits. Multiple axes were tested to prove the strength of the beam from multiply directions. Several potential beams were designed individually and then the best beam was selected using a decision matrix. The decision matrix helped because it removed all bias based on favoritism, and simply displayed which beam was the best based on statistical facts. The beam that was finally chosen met all weight, cost, and size constraints and also was able to support the intended load on each axis without nearing the maximum deflection limit. Across the x-axis, this beam supported 350lbs and deflected 0.175 inches. Across the Y axis, the beam held 300lbs and deflected 0.150 inches. The beam weighed a total of 205 grams including the 4 glue joints, and stayed within the designated price range cashing in at $10.10. As a recommendation to future engineers faced with this same task, using more material, spending more money, and ultimately creating a less efficient beam is an undesirable plan of action, but a better alternative to letting a beam fail completely. The greatest lesson learned was that calculations do not directly correlate to the real world. The numbers produced by formulas only work in a perfect situation, and do not account for all possible factors. With that being stated, a safety factor is mandatory in designing a successful beam. Without that, any number of things can go wrong with seemingly no explanation simply due to the incongruence between the formulas and reality. Introduction A wooden beam must be created which can withstand a certain amount of force without breaking while remaining within deflection limits. It must be 24 inches long overall but a 21 inch span length will be used when testing. Its cross sectional area may be no larger than 2x2. The basswood used is lb assumed to have an average modulus of elasticity of psi and a density of 28 m . The beam ft must have a total cost under $10.50 and must weigh no more than 260 grams. The X-Axis must be able to support 350 lbf and remain within the deflection limits ranging from 0.06 inches to 0.25 inches. The YAxis must be able to support 300 lbf while deflecting between 0.04 inches and 0.23 inches. No alterations may be made to the beam over the span length. All wood must be obtained from the 1201 Store and only Elmers Wood Glue may be used to bond the pieces. The beam should be designed for a maximum weight to strength ratio. Background I. Governing Equations a. Figure 1: . i. This equation is used to find the moment of inertia for a given beam assuming that the cross sectional area is symmetrical. 1. B = Base in inches 2. H = Height in inches 3. I = Moment of inertia in b. Figure 2: i. This equation is used to find the inches that the beam will deflect. The variables representing 1. P= load in 2. L= Length in inches 3. E= modulus of elasticity in pounds per square inch 4. I= Moment of inertia in

II. Research 1. The density of basswood can fall between 20 and 37 lbs/ft^3. a. Source i. 2. 1 kg/m^2 = 0.0624 lbs/ft^2 a. Source i. 3. Over a long period of time, wood beams utilized in the real world tend to split which significantly lowers their effectiveness as a building material. a. Source j. 4. Wooden beams are usually utilized in houses because they are far more aesthetically pleasing than steel of iron, and the loads that a house can put on a beam are far more suitable for wood because iron or steel isnt require. It would be overkill. a. Source j. 5. When constructing the beam, any movement while the glue is setting up will break the bonds and make the entire joint significantly weaker, so it is advised to use a clamp when gluing the parts together. a. Source k. III. References i. Wood Densities. Accessed October 22nd 2013. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wooddensity-d_40.html. j. Pros and Cons of Wood Beams. Accessed October 22nd 2013. http://www.redbeacon.com/hg/pros-and-cons-wood-beams/. k. The Many Types of Wood Glue. Accessed October 22, 2013. http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infadh/infadhe.html. Methods Over the course of this project, many steps were taken to reach to final goal. The first step involved actually learning the equations that are required to calculate the moment of inertia, and the change in deflection. For moment of inertia, the equation is simply . Once the moment of inertia

had been discovered, the equation for deflection ( ) could be used to find how many inches the beam would deflect. Once these concepts were understood, everyone in the group came together to develop a Gantt chart to map out the project. From there, each team member developed their own individual design package, which offered various solutions to the problem at hand. An excel spreadsheet was utilized as a calculator to produce the price, weight, cross sectional area, volume, moment of inertia, and deflection, when a few simple dimensions were input into the sheet. This calculator was used to check the students individual solutions. As part of the individual design package, each student used a decision matrix to find their best beam. Then a team decision matrix was used to find the best beam overall. Once that was decided, construction could begin. The first step in construction was to gather the wood. Once the required pieces of wood were acquired, they were clamped onto a right angle using the wood clamps in the innovation box and glued. Two sides of the beam were glued individually, and let dry. Once both sides had been glued, they were then glued together, and allowed to dry and cure for four days. The final step was to test the beam. This beam in particular met all of the requirements, and held to required load within the required deflection. The project was a success.

Observation and Results

Table 1: Experimental value comparison to theoretical value This table shows the values for experimental and calculated values, so we can use it to figure out the Deflection (x) in Deflection (y) in Mass g Restriction 0.06 in to 0.250 in 0.04in to 0.230in 260g (Max) Calculated (theoretical) Experimental (test)

0.173 in 0.175in

0.171 in 0.150in

165.4g 205g

differences between them in percentage by using an equation below.

The difference in percentage for deflection along x-axis:

The difference in percentage for deflection along y-axis:

Discussion This project was completed successfully with the results collected, but what does this data actually mean? First off, the calculated mass of the beam should have been 165.4 grams, but it weighed in at 205 grams. This difference was caused because the wood that was originally calculated when considering mass was out of stock. An extra eighth of an inch of basswood was present along both sides of the beam that was not considered during the initial calculations. Across the Y-axis, the beam performed better than the calculations said it would. The experimental results showed that it was 12.28% more rigid than it theoretically should have been. This slight error proves that the two formulas utilized in this project to not account for everything. The moment of inertia formula assumes that the material has the same strength at any given point whereas in reality, some parts of the bass wood might be stronger or weaker than other parts of the same board. Another variable that is not considered is the grain of the wood. Wood in general is stronger when a force is applied across or against the grain. The direction of the grain in the wood may account for the 12% difference between the calculations and reality. Across the X-Axis, this did not seem like a problem. The beam performed just like the calculations said it would, with a 1.156% error. Even if the formulas arent perfect, it is still possible to get somewhat accurate numbers from them. In this case, the percent error could have derived from human error, or equipment calibration error. When running calculations for a project like this, it is important to have at least two members of the team check all of the calculations. If one member gets the wrong numbers, which is surprisingly easy to do, than the error would be much greater, and might even result in a failure.

In conclusion, back to the original question, this data collected means that the calculations were carried out with precision for the most part. All of our numbers that differ from the experimental can be explained through common logic, which means that the error was not the result of faulty calculations. Conclusion and Recommendations This project was carried out almost perfectly. Hard work and solid calculations resulted in a strong beam that could have potentially carried a load of 500lbs. A safety factor was included to prevent the beam from failing because a failure in the beam would result in a lower grade for the team. The beam met all of the requirements, it fell within the correct price range, deflected just enough but not too much under the specified load, and was consistent with the maximum cross sectional area allowed. The Gantt chart was especially helpful when scheduling this project. Every date was laid out and the work was planned before it was actually done. This prevented procrastination and kept the team on track. One recommendation however would be to complete the excel calculator before attempting to find the solution for the required deliverables. The calculator could save tremendous amounts of time that could be utilized for sleep or other things that do not directly pertain to this project. In addition, a certain amount of safety factor must be considered when carrying out the calculations. This way the beam basically cannot fail because it was designed to carry a greater load than was required. Appendix Figure 3: Ali Redha, The

actual beam under 335 pounds of pressure, cell phone camera picture.

Figure 4: Sample calculationsThe x axis deflection can be no more than 0.250 inches and a 30lb safety factor was included ( ) When Solved I = 0.201. The y axis deflection can be no more than 0.230 inches and a 30lb safety factor was included

When solved, I = .190 For beam 1, to get the I value for x To get the I value for y Solve for each component then add it all up. = 0.22 Figure 5: Dimensioned Beam cross section

1.5in
in

in

Table 2: All design related data from team design package Team Beam CrossMembe Configuratio Sectional Mass Volume r n Area Travis Hollow Box 0.984 in2 0.364 lbm 165.4 g 0.392 lbm 178.0 g 0.437 lbm 198.4 g 0.510 lbm 232.0 g 0.0130 22.50 in3 ft3

Tota l Cost $8.7 4 $8.2 3 $9.0 4 $8.8 2

Inertia Ix = 0.268 in4 Iy = 0.231 in4 Ix = 0.321 in4 Iy = 0.170 in4 Ix = 0.367 in4 Iy = 0.224 in4 Ix = 0.346 in4 Iy = 0.343 in4

Deflection x = 0.173 in y = 0.171 in x = 0.143 in y = 0.230 in x = 0.137 in y = 0.224 in x = 0.143 in y = 0.125 in

Ali

I-Beam

1.007 in2

0.0140 ft3 24.18 in3 0.0156 ft3 27.00 in3 0.0182 ft3 31.50 in3

Mitchel l

I-Beam

1.125

in2

Xue

I-Beam

1.3125 in2