Straw Testing Lab Report

Lecture Section A3, Professor Elise Morgan

Group Members:

Devin Bidstrup, ​Charles Liang

Emanuel Perez, ​Shihao Xing (Eric)

 2

Table Of Contents:

Introduction:………………………………………………………………………………………3

Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Analysis:…………………………………………………………………………………………..5

Data:……………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Results:…………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Discussion:………………………………………………………………………………………...9

Conclusion:………………………………………………………………………………………12

Appendix:………………………………………………………………………………………...13

Meeting Minutes:...............................................................................................................13

Group Contract:.................................................................................................................16

Calculations:......................................................................................................................17
 3

Introduction:

​The analysis of a truss is one of the essential topics in EK 301. The group is assigned to

design, create and test a truss while managing specifications, such as cost, span and load

capacity, which is made from straws, foam core gusset plates, and T-pins. Four main components

are involved: Material Analysis, Preliminary Design, Redesign and Build, and Testing. The straw

lab is the foundation of this large project -- Material Analysis. It helps to calculate the buckling

strength of the straw per length, and predict future problems before designing and constructing

the final bridge. Meanwhile, the straw lab will help every group member know the benefit of

teamwork as engineers.

Procedure:

1. Equipment:

a. The tester number is 4 with an armed mass of 221 grams.

b. Distance of center pin to center of gravity .14 m

c. Bucket to center of gravity .025 m

d. Straw to center of gravity .055 m

2. Operating Steps:

a. Punch all straws with two pins at both ends: the first pin is 5mm from the end, and

the second pin is 5mm from the first.

b. Place the first sacrificial straw, which is supported by pins, vertically in the straw

testing apparatus.

c. Use the gradienter to make sure the tester arm is horizontal.

 4

d. Put the mass in the bucket, quickly test the buckling mass.

e. Put the second straw, repeat Step b and Step c.

f. Put the next straw into the tester then add the initial buckling weight and add

about 20 grams. Wait 30 seconds then repeat until the buckling occurs.

g. Repeat Step e and Step f until test all straws with the same length.

h. Repeat Step b to Step g until all straws are tested.

value unit
Tester 4
Tester Arm Mass (kg) 0.221 kg
Distance from center pin to center of gravity 0.14 m
Distance from bucket to the center of gravity 0.025 m
Distance from straw to the center of gravity 0.055 m
Figure 1: Tester Information, comprised of the tester number and useful distances
 5

Analysis:

(a) Straw (b) Tester Arm

Figure 2: FBD of the (a) straw and the (b) tester arm and all

The resultant force of the tester arm mass and the buckling mass is simplified down to a
single force in the axial direction of the straw. This does not allow the calculation of the force on
the straw as a result of the known buckling mass ( B kg ) since there are two unknowns and only
one equation. As such, the FBD of the tester is used with the following equations to determine
how B kg relates to the force on the straw ( F straw ). Something to note is that both the ΣF y and
ΣF x equations (and consequently F py and F px ) are not used in the final calculations because
the moment equation already reduces the number of unknowns to just F straw .

4.15
ΣF x = 0 = F px = 0 N

ΣF y = 0 = F py + F straw − B kg * (9.81) − 2.168

ΣM p = 0 = <− .14, 0, 0 >*< 0,− 2.168, 0 > + <− .165, 0, 0 >*< 0,− 9.81 * B , 0 > + <− .195, 0, 0 >*< 0, F straw , 0 >
0 = .304 + 1.619 * B − .195 * F straw
F straw = 8.3 * B kg + 1.56 N
 6

The final equation for F straw is then used to convert the buckling mass to the force on the
straw in Newtons.

For example, B kg = 1.050 kg, F straw = 8.3 * 1.050 + 1.56 N = 10.61 N

4.2.1
For both the Mean and Standard Deviation of the data set the Mean and Standard
Deviation equations were iterated using the buckling load of each trial ( W i ) and the average
buckling load of each length ( W j ).

1. Mean of Forces
N
M eanj = W j = N1 Σ i=1 Wi

W .11m = ( 15 )(10.28 + 10.19 + 10.19 + 10.61 + 10.61) = 10.38 N

2. Standard Deviation

√
N
Σ i=1 (W i −W j )2
σj = N −1

2 2 2 2 2
σ .11m = √ ((10.28−10.38) +(10.19−10.38) +(10.19−10.38) +(10.61−10.38) +(10.61−10.38) )
5−1
= .215 N

Our method of curve fitting involves drawing a line in between the data points that
visually seem to in between all of them, but since our graph did not have any easy trend to
follow, this seemed rather inaccurate. Later excel’s functions were used to determine a more
accurate best line of fit to be able to analyze the equations behavior.

Data:
 7

Figure 3: Table comprising of all the data that was used for the curve fit. Length 11cm, 13cm,
14cm were acquired personally using tester 4.
 8

Results:

Figure 4: Two best-fit lines, six data points from the lab, and error bars calculated using the
standard deviation of each data point.
 9

Discussion:

The results make physical sense, as the buckling loads are never greater than 15 N (3.3

lb-f). Also, the buckling load of the straw seems to increase as the length of the straw decreases.

This makes sense, as shorter rods (in this case the straw as a small, plastic rod) tend to have a

higher buckling load in real life (for example a taller table that sways versus a shorter table that

is more stable).

The dominant error was most likely in the actual data gathering. In particular, there was a

lack of weights, resulting in the need to remove weights before being able to increase the load.

The problem is that this resulted in a larger initial force on the straw (extra kinetic energy from

the larger weight being dropped in) and would have most likely decreased the measured buckling

load. To improve this experiment, the load should be applied to the straw in smaller increments

in the axial direction (perhaps a very precise hydraulic press?). This would allow for a much

better distribution of buckling loads.

The final point of the graph (0.195,7.12) seems to be an outlier since the buckling force

decreased as length decreased in the previous four points. This certainly affected the best fit line

by increasing the slope and decreasing the intercept. This, in turn, would have increased the

average vertical distance from each point.

Increasing the number of lengths tested would improve the experiment uncertainty more

than increasing the number of trials per length. This is because the best fit line would be more

representative of the actual relationship between length and buckling load as opposed to adding

more trials per length, which would have decreased the standard deviation, but would not have

significantly improved the representation of the relationship.

 10

The best line fit derived from the data points was y = − 196 * x + 33.4 where y is the

max buckling load and x is the length of the straw. The error of fit was 0.9782 N. The error of fit

is larger than the individual error bars for each point. One reason for the inaccuracy is that the

data points do not seem to have a linear relationship, but a quadratic or exponential one. Also,

the outlier data point might have caused an exaggerated standard deviation. The standard

deviation for each length was larger than the error of fit. Thus, it will be better to use the error of

fit for individual measurements when determining the failure load of the project truss.

The next best line fit involving all of the data points had an average deviation from our

points of 1.59 N, but having a standard deviation for the other’s group data points of 1.74 N. The

formula derived from the points was y = − 61 * x + 18.1 . The decrease of the overall

deviation means that a larger pool of data points will aid in having a more accurate function

relating length with the max buckling load. This means that a greater decrease in error would

result from increasing the number of lengths tested compared with the alternative method of

increasing the number of tests per length.

As previously stated, using class data would increase the accuracy of the equation. The

increase of accuracy derives from decreasing the impact of outliers since there is more noise

(data points) that can muffle out any outliers. Also, more data points mean more opportunities to

understand the behavior of the equation thus having a more clear understanding of the relation

between length and max buckle load. This allows GSTs to construct a better curve using

knowledge of a theoretical curve for the buckling strength as a function of length and creating a

semi-empirical fit to get a much more accurate curve. Therefore the curve fit produced by the

GST’s will be used in all analysis of the project trusses to reduce the uncertainty of analysis.
 11

During this lab, it was necessary to cut the straws to length, pin the straws effectively,

apply the load evenly, and perform other skills to test the straw lengths. The team honed those

skills and learned how to avoid mistakes in performing those tasks. It became apparent that the

straw must be cut evenly at the ends to properly distribute the load on the straw and to prevent a

pin from ripping through the straw end. With scissors this can be somewhat difficult to achieve,

so one has to be precise when performing the cut. Pinning was more standardized using the jig

provided in the lab, allowing the 5mm separation to be achieved more consistently. Assuming

that the jig will be used for the actual truss building, the consistency of the pinning should be

improved. The distribution of load on the straws improved as the trials progressed. The key, in

this case, was to lower the weight slowly onto the tester to get the most accurate data. In the

future when testing truss designs a similar strategy should be employed as not to add any extra

force due to gravity or the tester’s hands. Looking forward to the future the methods learned in

this lab as well as the data analysis will hopefully be used to improve the construction of the

truss.
 12

Conclusion:

From this experiment, the buckling load of a straw was determined as a function of the

length of the straw. This was done by obtaining data for 6 different lengths and then fitting a

curve to that data in order to get a function which best approximates the aforementioned

relationship. This function will not be used in the future parts of this project due to the degree of

error involved. This error is minimized in two different fashions by the GSTs (described in

detail above in the discussion section) which allows them to create a better function which is

accurate enough for our own use. This function then, using the results obtained by our group and

the class, will be used for determining the maximum load that the straws can sustain within the

truss. This will be necessary when designing the truss and predicting when it will fail.

This experiment could be improved by the addition of a better tester which applied force

evenly to the straws along their length, applying this force slowly so that it would be possible to

determine the exact buckling force. This would not only be more precise, but it would also be

accurate to a greater number of significant figures. Another point aforementioned was that a

knife or paper cutter would work more effectively as an implement to cut the straws evenly and

with precision. These implements would not crush the straw as they cut them as a pair of

scissors would.
 13

Appendix:

Group Teamwork/Collaberation Contract:

Monday, March 8th, 2019
Ingalls Study Room F

Commenced at 5:53 pm
Recorder: Devin Bidstrup
Acting Chair: Charles
…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Planned Agenda:
● Discuss what Hitchhikers and Couch Potatoes are.
● Why do people say that it takes two to tango?
● Discuss the methods to deal with these types of people.
● What will the group do to prevent these issues now and when they occur in the future?

Important Points: (Caricaturization of the dialogue as it happened)

● Charles: From what we read, what Hitchhikers are hitchhikers?
○ Devin: Hitchhikers do no work for the group and try to get away with it by
deflecting the blame onto others. They still expect to receive credit without doing
any work.
○ Emanuel: Right, they are worse than couch potatoes which are group members
who focus on things other than their engineering work. Couch potatoes are easier
to deal with than hitchhiker according to this case study.
● Charles: Next point, what do people mean by it takes two to tango?
○ Eric: It does take two people to cause a problem, but it can be one person who
causes the problem.
○ Charles: Right, it is important to realize issues before they come up and deal with
those issues.
● Charles: How does the case study suggest dealing with these issues?
○ Emanuel: Stick with your guns! Don’t back down, make sure they know that you
will take their name off the lab report if they do not contribute.
○ Devin: Don’t take on the work that was assigned to them, trust that they will get
the work done.
○ Eric: Don’t give in and try to make them happy, it may be tough, but stick with it!
● Charles: The table is open, what can we do as a group to prevent these issues?
○ Devin: Make sure we communicate effectively when we want to meet, establish a
group chat on our phones so that we all know what is going on.
 14

○ Charles: Right and if people don’t listen to what we are discussing in the chat, we
talk about it in class and make sure that they pay attention in the future.
○ Eric: Beyond communicating we need to make sure that we divide the work and
each do different portions of it.
○ Emanuel: True and if someone doesn’t do their work we confront them about it.

● We then established for the Straw Testing Lab, the attached project timeline which details
what we agreed to do when.
*End of Meeting at 6:28 pm
…………………………………………………………………………………………....
Project Timeline:

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday (3/21) Friday

(3/18) (3/19) (3/20) (3/22)

Lab Report ✔ ✔ (FINISH!!)

Group ✔
Contract

Group ✔
Meeting

Straw ✔
Analysis
 15

Group Strengths and Weaknesses

Devin Bidstrup:
Strength:
● Good communication
● Hard Worker
● Knows Matlab
Weakness:
● Bad at drawing
● Prone to algebra mistakes
Emanuel Perez:
Strength:
● Comfortable with Excel, powerpoint, word processor, and matlab
● Hard Worker
Weakness:
● Prone to arithmetic mistakes (forgetting signs)
Charles Liang:
Strength:
● Organized
● Strong Work Ethic
● Early to meetings
Weakness:
● Trust issues
● Less productive when working outside of personal room
Shihao Xing / Eric:
Strength:
● Knows Java, C++, MATLAB, and SolidWorks
● Work Hard
Weakness:
● Communication
● Writing skill
 16

Group Teamwork/Collaberation Contract:

In the case that a deadline is missed by one group member than the following actions
shall be performed in order to remedy the situation.
1. Discuss with the given group member to see if they can finish what work was required
for that deadline and then turn in that work.
a. In the case that the person can quickly make up the work, wait for them to do so
(less than 2 hours) and then turn in the whole deliverable as a group.
b. If they cannot quickly finish the work, the rest of the group will turn in the portion
of the work that is completed without the group members name, When the group
member finishes the work he can turn in that portion himself along with an
explanation for why it is separate and late.
2. Later discuss with the group member what could be done to improve communication and
make sure that the work is finished on time. Identify the problem they had and then try to
work through that issue.
3. If a group member has late work more then once, the rest of the group will address the
professor in order to resolve this issue.

Sign below to affirm that you read and understood this contract:

00

_________________________________ _________________________________

_________________________________ _________________________________
 17

Calculations:

√
N
Σ i=1 (W i −W j )2
σj = N −1

2 2 2 2 2
σ .11m = √ ((10.28−10.38) +(10.19−10.38) +(10.19−10.38) +(10.61−10.38) +(10.61−10.38) )
5−1
= .215 N

2 2 2 2 2
σ .13m = √ ((8.53−8.45) +(8.2−8.45) +(8.78−8.45) +(8.37−8.45) +(8.37−8.45) )
5−1
= .22 N

2 2 2 2 2
σ .14m = √ ((6.46−7.01) +(7.04−7.01) +(7.7−7.01) +(6.71−7.01) +(7.12−7.01) )
5−1
= .472 N

2 2 2 2 2
σ .195m = √ ((14.84−14.81) +(15.34−14.81) +(14.84−14.81) +(14.43−14.81) +(14.59−14.81) )
5−1
= .345 N

2 2 2 2 2
σ .125m = √ ((8.78−9.4) +(9.28−9.4) +(9.2−9.4) +(10.52−9.4) +(9.2−9.4) )
5−1
= .66 N

4.15
ΣF x = 0 = F px = 0 N

ΣF y = 0 = F py + F straw − B kg * (9.81) − 2.168

ΣM p = 0 = <− .14, 0, 0 >*< 0,− 2.168, 0 > + <− .165, 0, 0 >*< 0,− 9.81 * B , 0 > + <− .195, 0, 0 >*< 0, F straw , 0 >
0 = .304 + 1.619 * B − .195 * F straw
F straw = 8.3 * B + 1.56 N

4.2.1
2. Mean of Forces
N
M eanj = W j = N1 Σ i=1 Wi

W .11m = ( 15 )(10.28 + 10.19 + 10.19 + 10.61 + 10.61) = 10.38 N

W .13m = ( 15 )(8.53 + 8.2 + 8.78 + 8.37 + 8.37)= 8.45 N
W .14m = ( 15 )(6.46 + 7.04 + 7.7 + 6.71 + 7.12) = 7.01 N
W .195m = ( 15 )(6.54 + 7.12 + 7.54 + 7.04 + 6.87) = 7.02 N
W .1m = ( 15 )(14.84 + 15.34 + 14.84 + 14.43 + 14.59) = 14.81 N
W .125m = ( 15 )(8.78 + 9.28 + 9.2 + 10.52 + 9.2) = 9.4 N