Tutorial 3 Team 5

Name: Student Number:

Christiaan Joubert 7248386

Jake Delaney 7622430

Matthew Cordell 7480556

Thomas Druhan 7326099

1
 Team assignment cover sheet

Student name: Student number: Student submitting work (x):

1. Christiaan Joubert 7248386

2. Jake Delaney 7622430

3. Matthew Cordell 7480556

4. Thomas Druhan 7326099 X

Subject number and name: ENGG102 Fundamentals of Engineering

Mechanics

Subject coordinator: Dr Aziz Ahmed

Title of Assignment: ENGG102: Project 1B Balsa Beam Redesign

and Retest

Date and time due: 11/04/2022 by 11:59pm

Tutorial Number: 3

Team Letter: T3T5

Total number of pages: 26

Student declaration and acknowledgement (must be read by all students):

By submitting this assignment online, the submitting student declares on behalf of the team
that:

1. All team members have read the subject outline for this subject, and this assessment
item meets the requirements of the subject detailed therein.
2. This assessment is entirely our own work, except where we have included fully
documented references to the work of others. The material contained in this
assessment item has not previously been submitted for assessment.

2
3. Acknowledgement of source information is in accordance with the guidelines or
referencing style specified in the subject outline.
4. All team members are aware of the late submission policy and penalty.
5.

6. The submitting student undertakes to communicate all feedback with the other
team members.

3
 ENGG102
Project 1B
Balsa Beam Redesign and Retest

4
Contents

Statement of Purpose............................................................................................................................6
Description of Preliminary Design.........................................................................................................7
Results of Preliminary Design................................................................................................................8
600mm Span Description......................................................................................................................9
Redesigned Beam Description.............................................................................................................11
Revised Drawings & Volume................................................................................................................12
Results of all Teams.............................................................................................................................13
Comparison of Results.........................................................................................................................14
Reflection............................................................................................................................................15
Teamwork Performance......................................................................................................................17
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................18
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................19
Appendix A..........................................................................................................................................20
Appendix B..........................................................................................................................................22
Appendix C..........................................................................................................................................23
ENGG102 Team Ground Rules and Contract Form.............................................................................24
Self-Assessment Sheet........................................................................................................................25

5
Statement of Purpose

In the case of balsa beam design and testing, the civil engineering behind this strives to withstand
the applied weights to provide a solution to beam design in real-world applications.

The requirements of the preliminary beam design included a 24.5N applied point load to the centre
of the beam over a 400mm span. The requirements of the redesigned beam included a 24.5N
applied point load to the centre of the beam over a 630mm span.

This report aims to provide our team's rationale for electing our beam design. It also demonstrates
detailed sketches of our team's beam and compares the results of the beam’s test with other teams’
beams to measure what is an efficient design that minimises costs of materials. Most importantly,
this report aims to improve the performance of project 1A’s beam by changes to the design and a
more in-depth analysis of forces acting on the beam.

In addition, the report acknowledges the importance of reflection that has been completed by the
whole team to assess methods of success and failure in the design and construction phases. This
section most importantly outlines how well we worked as a team and provides suggestions for
improvements on our design if it was to be completed yet again.

Lastly, this report draws upon the relevant learning outcomes for ENGG102 and maps our team's
understanding of the subject so far in accordance with these outcomes before concluding.

6
Description of Preliminary Design

Our team incorporated a number of alternative design schemes when deciding on the preliminary
design of the beam.

Concept one was discussed to have met the deflection criteria but overused the materials provided.
Initially, our team experimented with aligning rods side-by-side as well as stacking them. Aligning the
rods side-by-side was dismissed due to the lack of rigidity added to the vertical plane when
compared to stacking vertically.

Concept two involved the experimentation and discussion of different cross-sectional areas. It was
discussed that if the I-beam was to be used, this would maximise structural integrity as well as
achieve the desired deflection. It also would be suitable given the material constraints. However, our
team dismissed this design as we concluded it would allow for too much deflection during the test
and potential plastic deformation when tested sideways.

With all of our knowledge from previous beam concepts combined, as well as the consideration of
the advantages and disadvantages that they provided, our team selected a design that would aim to
meet all the criteria required. This included material constraints, both vertical and horizontal rigidity
and suitable deflection. Our team selected the T shape beam as our preliminary design to be tested
against the weights. We manipulated our selected materials in an attempt to effectively create a
beam design that would successfully deflect between 1.5-6.5mm.

Figure 1: A breakdown
of T-Beam structure

The preliminary beam design materials:

x1 Balsa sheet (450mm*75mm*1.5mm)

x2 Balsa rods (900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm)

x2 Balsa rods (900mm*3mm*3mm)

Both of the 900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods were cut in half to make four 450mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods
that were glued along the centre of the balsa sheet with a width of two rods. The same was done
with the 900mm*3mm*3mm rods making four 450mm*3mm*3mm rods. The four
450mm*3mm*3mm rods were glued on top of the existing four 450mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods with a
width of two rods. This produced the final T shape preliminary beam design.

Results of Preliminary Design

7
Team
TableType
1: Project Deflection
1A results (mm) Met Criteria Volume mm3 Fabrication Comments
Yes OR No Effort eg Performance relative to type
1 = straight eg High, Performance relative to volume
2 = sideways Medium or Low Performance relative to
fabrication effort
Apparent failure mode?
What else did you observe?
5 T-beam 1. 0.2 1. No 134,775 Medium Materials seemed to strengthen
2. 2.3 2. Yes over time leading to insufficient
deflection on the vertical plane.

The stress of Preliminary Design: σ =(2.5 kg∗9.81 m/ s2 )/ 2.925∗1 0−4 m2

4
σ =8.38∗1 0 MPa

Predictions for Preliminary designed beam:

600mm Span Description

8
 This 630mm span beam initiated our team's understanding of the importance of the I-beam design.
This was our first attempt at theoretically designing an I-beam. Our team chose to cut the balsa
sheet in half lengthways and then trim it to 650mm which would allow for 10mm of overhang on
either end of the span. We then cut four of the 900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods to 650mm to match
the sheet before gluing them to each of the corners.

Unlike an I-beam, the preliminary T-beam lacks a bottom flange due to its shape. Although this may
save materials, there is a dramatic loss of resistance to tensile forces. In the engineering world, it is
therefore important to assess the conditions that the beam is sitting in and the potential forces
acting on it before selecting a design. Both T and I-beams apply to certain situations.

The 600mm span beam materials:

x1 Balsa sheet (900mm*75mm*1.5mm)

x4 Balsa rods (900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm)

Sketches of 630mm span beam (including a side-by-side comparison of the template and our final
design):

Figure 2: Aerial, End and Side

View of 600mm span beam

Figure 3: Cross-sectional
comparison

Approximate volume of balsa wood used for 600mm span beam:

9
Redesigned Beam Description

After some reassessment and evaluation of our team's beam in project 1A and the design of the
600mm span beam, we have decided to implement the I shape beam design in project 1B. After
completing some further background research into what cross-sectional area is dominant in the
design of beams our team discovered that the I-beam would lead to many improvements in project
1B. It would be designed to be placed on a 600mm span and meet the deflection of 6.5mm < δ >
1.5mm produced by the 24.5N load.

I-beams are the desired cross-sectional shape for structural steel beam builds simply because of
their high functionality. The I shape makes them excellent for unidirectional bending parallel to the

10
web. The horizontal flanges resist the bending movement, while the web resists the shear stress.
This way, I-beams can take various types of loads and shear stresses without buckling.

An I-beam is designed in a way to handle a uniform load across the beam. When there is a weight on
the beam, the maximum deflection will fall on the centre of the beam. This increases the tension on
the sides of the beam.

Figure 4: A breakdown
of I-Beam structure When the
weight is

applied to the flange, the weight gets distributed evenly, causing less tension to pass through the
web. When this weight reaches the centre of the web, the weight is reduced to zero newtons. This is
because of the distribution of the weight. Therefore, simply because of the I shape, it can bear the
load of weight put on its flange.

The versatile functionality of the I-beam is what gives it the name, universal beam.

The redesigned beam materials:

x1 Balsa sheet (900mm*75mm*1.5mm)

x4 Balsa rods (900mm*5mm*5mm)

Revised Drawings & Volume

11
 Sketches of the redesigned beam (including a side-by-side comparison of the template and our final
design):

Figure 5: Aerial, End and Side

View of redesigned beam

Figure 6: Cross-sectional
comparison

Approximate volume of balsa wood used for redesigned beam and predetermined deflection:

12
 Results of all Teams

TableTeam Type table Calculated

2: Tutorial three of results Measured Met Material Used Volume Fabrication Comments
Box, I Deflection Deflection Criteria 1.5 x 75 Sheet mm3 Effort eg Performance relative to type
beam, (CD) (MD) Yes 3 x 3 Square eg High, Performance relative to volume
Channel, mm mm or 5 x 5 Square Medium Performance relative to fabrication effort
Zed or No 6.5 x 6.5 Square or Low Apparent failure mode? What else did you
Double Box observe?
section?
Greater than
(4) 3 x 3 Square Strong structural integrity given a relatively
1 I-Beam N/A threshold No 77700 Low
(3) 5 x 5 Square low volume of beam.
2.05
Based on the value for young’s modulus
(1) 1.5 x 75 Sheet
2 Box Beam 19.08 Yes 196000 Low calculated in week 3. This value turned out to
(4) 6.5 x 6.5 Square
be poorly measured.
2.00
(4) 6.5 x 6.5 Square Well designed I-beam recording appropriate
3 I-Beam 3.40 Yes 133250 Medium
(4) 3 x 3 Square deflection.
4.50
(1) 1.5 x 75 Sheet Low fabrication effort may suggest a lack of
4 I-Beam 3.75 Yes 113750 Low
(4) 5 x 5 Square rigidity given the highest deflection.
2.70
(1) 1.5 x 75 Sheet Overcame glue implication of project 1A to
5 I-Beam 1.334 Yes 138125 Medium
(4) 5 x 5 Square record appropriate deflection
Less than
High fabrication effort suggested it was built
threshold (1) 1.5 x 75 Sheet
6 I-Beam 2.20 No 64575 High too strong to deflect enough though did use
(4) 3 x 3 Square
the least amount of material.
4.15 (1) 1.5 x 75 Sheet
7 I-Beam 2.56 Yes 91350 Medium Minimal volume and maximised deflection.
(4) 5 x 5 Square

13
Comparison of Results

As seen in Table 2, our experimental deflection of 2.7mm was significantly greater than our
precalculated deflection of 1.334mm. Despite this inconsistency, our beam did meet the criteria of
the project. We applied what we learned from project 1A and used less glue so that it only acts to
hold the beam together instead of adding to the rigidity. With a similar design to that of group 4 and
group 7, all our measured deflections were greater than the calculated. However, compared to
groups 3 and 6 who also had a similar I-beam design, their measured deflections were lesser than
the calculated. In contrast, our calculated deflection was the smallest out of all groups, which may
be down to having used a different value for Young’s Modulus of balsa wood, as there are various
numbers available when researching it. Despite this, our measured deflection falls very close to the
mean (2.87mm) of all I-beam groups.

The main failure mechanism was the lever testing apparatus. Firstly, each test requires the 600mm
span to be measured and distributed evenly about the point load. Secondly, the beam must be
aligned under the point of the applied load. This allows plenty of scope for human error, as the span
itself can be unbalanced about the point load, and the beam can be positioned diagonally over the
600mm span. These factors of the test contribute to a variety of measured deflections, despite
having a very similar design to other groups that also chose the I-beam. To add to this, the beam
itself may not be at an angle perfectly perpendicular to the floor, which would contribute to
measurements differing from calculations.

14
Reflection

Having constructed and tested a range of I-beams, reflection on our successes and failures are made
possible as well as that of others in the class. When redesigning the beam, we anticipated that the
measured deflection will be slightly more than the calculated deflection, however not to the extent
observed. As the desired range of deflection was 1.5mm to 6.5mm, we concluded that a calculated
deflection of 1.334mm would yield a measured deflection within the desired range due to any
human flaws in construction and testing. The test proved our anticipation to be valid, however, the
extent to which the calculation differs from the experimental value indicates some errors, believed
to be rooted in construction. When analysing the results, it is evident that we had a large disparity
between calculations and the experiment compared to other groups. We know that the closer the
two values are, the more successful the beam is. Other beams such as group 4 performed better as
they took greater care when constructing the beam. Our group was stressed under the constraint of
time, which affected the quality and care applied when constructing. In future, this would need to be
identified and omitted to improve the performance of our beam. If we were to repeat the design
process and were not constrained by material size, we would make the two 1.5mm thick sheets as
one solid 3mm sheet. This would eliminate possible errors in construction and hopefully bring the
experimental value closer to the calculated deflection.

When reflecting on the original 400mm bridge problem in weeks 1 and 2, the value of calculations in
design is realised. In the first construction attempt, there was no knowledge of theory and equations
that could be used. Simply trying to estimate how much the beam would deflect under load and
trying to design based on that estimate is a hindered approach to an engineering problem. The
application of calculations in the second attempt helped significantly to design a beam that will, to
reasonable accuracy, meet the desired outcomes. In addition, the calculations were generalised to
allow fast redesign to match changing criteria. We kept the cross-sectional shape constant, and then
changed the variables of different material sizes. After working through calculations with different
options we quickly and accurately arrived at a new design that matched the new criteria. This
example of a generalised approach is basic, yet it is the fundamental approach to more complex
engineering problems. By making some variables constant and knowing exactly which to vary, the
approach is standardised and made easier.

It is evident that our team’s knowledge of beam behaviour and design has increased the more we
continue to learn about engineering mechanics. Our team has learnt more about the relevant
existing and resultant forces and moments acting on beams in the real world. We have learnt to
calculate these resultant forces when given initial forces and moments. We have also been able to
visually represent those results with shear force and moment diagrams which illustrate the
maximum force or moment acting on a beam. This is vitally important for engineers. Certainly, there
are still gaps in our team's understanding of the nature of beams. It is important to address how
engineers are always constantly improving, and there is inevitably a large degree of elements to
engineering not yet discovered. We aim to fill those gaps by broadening our scope and scale of
understanding about engineering mechanics. This will be done through many more experiments
with a degree of similarity to project 1B in university.

Our team learned to improve on our original design through some prior background research. We
learnt the many reasons why I-beams are used when loads are applied in this format. Our team also
learned to improve on our quality of design which contributes to the effectiveness of deflection

15
when tested. We had discovered that most other teams had also used similar strategies to improve
their designs.

In a reworking of an original assignment, our team was forced to adapt to changing specifications
with the goal in mind to improve our outcome. Our team had cycled through the forming, storming,
norming and performing sequence to ultimately produce a successful project 1B report. Group
members needed to be clear about why the group has been established, what tasks are to be
undertaken, what skills and knowledge the team members possess or may need, roles, and how the
group will operate, meet and communicate. This has been recorded throughout and can be seen in
the evidence of teem minutes section. Our team has captured the advances in communications
technology to enable virtual meetings when needed. Whilst our team may have taken some time to
establish and agree on our final design in the storming phase, contributions by each team member
along the way have changed the shape of our final beam. All team members have developed their
leadership skills by taking ownership of certain aspects such as designing, constructing, testing and
analysing. Our team most importantly realises that it is important to learn from team experiences
through reflective practice.

In attempt 1A the T-beam design was used. Upon reflection, the layering of smaller beams to form a
larger beam is effectively reconstructing a solid length of timber. In the thesis by H Richard,
"Engineered vs. Traditional: A Comparison of Wood Beams" (1994), the effectiveness of an I-beam
shape is explained. The purpose of a beam is to reduce stress in the member, which is achieved
either through reducing the load itself or increasing the second moment of inertia. The largest forces
are compression and tension forces acting in the flange region of the beam. The I-beam most
effectively carries these loads, as it is strong in the flanges yet lightweight. Therefore, changing from
a T-beam to an I-beam, and choosing an I-beam design over a box, channel or box-channel design
was a successful decision.

In project 1A, our team the building phase took the most time and was difficult to ensure all pieces
of the design were constructed accurately. In hindsight, we had discovered that the amount of glue
used had increasingly strengthened the beam when drying. We avoided this problem in project 1B
by controlling our use of glue to ensure only the necessary amount was used. We also avoided the
weak horizontal design nature simply by changing the cross-sectional area of the beam.

Our team’s performance relative to other teams who also completed the project was relatively good.
There were a minority of other teams that didn’t meet the requirements this time around. Given
that we had failed to meet requirements in project 1A but met requirements in project 1B, our team
has improved our performance relative to some other teams. There was one other team that
experienced a significant fracture of their beam when testing which could suggest that their
construction approach wasn’t ideal. Our team tried to push the constraints in project 1B by coming
up with multiple designs that met or didn’t meet the criteria whilst trying to maintain the efficiency
of materials. Our final beam could be seen as a little more conservative than our original designs but
this was largely due to the fact that we wanted a beam that would ‘work’.

This approach to beam design and construction can be generalised and applied to several other
engineering problems. The use of I-beams is already heavily generalised and used in various
engineering projects such as bridge, skyscraper and railways constructions.

16
Teamwork Performance

In comparison to our first project as a team, individually and collectively we were able to adopt the
necessary traits and characteristics to further deepen our understanding of what it takes to
effectively produce an outcome through the equal input of all team members. Teamwork was a
critical factor that we intended to incorporate into our procedures within all factors of this project,
and in doing so, successfully constructed a textbook beam that adhered to the given criteria.

As a team, we intended to ensure that the overall morale was high, which would ultimately lead to a
deeper connection amongst team members. This strategy allowed each member to understand that
they held a stake within the project, and in doing so helped us to support one another through
difficult situations and let us feel comfortable with one another when seeking guidance or
assistance. If we were approached with a challenging problem, through our effectively developed
collective skills, experiences and knowledge as a team, we were able to efficiently tackle anything
necessary.

Any solutions that were presented by the team were taken greatly into consideration, as we
considered the pros and cons of all team input. This allowed us to develop a form of credibility
amongst one another, as we thoroughly reviewed proposals and drew on our previously developed
collective experiences and skills. As a team we worked collaboratively, allowing those who may not
have had a greater initial understanding to learn and develop as we went along. As well as this, we
shared ideas and experiences, strongly encouraging communication, trust, support and ensuring a
positive working environment, all of which are essential for improved productivity and effective
teamwork performance.

Overall, our team undoubtedly worked effectively as a team and will continue to do so through the
course of our time together. Each member showed the characteristics necessary to be admired as a
growing student engineer who demonstrates the correct traits of teamwork and collaboration.

17
Conclusion

The overall purpose of this experiment was to design a beam structure that when placed over a
630mm span and had a mass of 3.5kg placed on top of the centre of the beam, would create a
deflection in the beam of between 1.5 - 6.5mm. The beam had to be constructed as either an I, box,
channel cross, or double box cross shape from a cross-sectional perspective. From the results
gathered it can be concluded that the overall experiment succeeded as opposed to the original
experiment. Compared to the other group beam experiments our beam was fairly strong with the
second-largest volume. When tested the balsa beam had a deflection of 2.7mm. Although the beam
did meet the criteria, compared to the other successful groups our cost efficiency was more on the
lower side with a total volume of 138,125mm^3. A problem from the original experiment was that
the amount of glue used was simply way too much, ultimately affecting the overall beam strength,
decreasing deflection. This time the glue was used sparingly giving us a much more accurate result
for the strength, and ultimately, deflection of the balsa beam design.

An issue regarding this experiment is how the predicted deflection, found by calculations suggested
that our beam would fail the test. The calculations stated that our beam would underperform
providing a deflection of roughly 0.95mm. It's undetermined why that is. All other groups failed in
this category too. Possibly from human error or the use of glue or material. Another limitation
includes the volume of the beam. We have successfully achieved a deflection between the
parameters, although other groups have done so more cost-efficiently. In conclusion, this
experiment has expanded our view on the optimisation of beam materials and structure to make the
ideal beam for a given parameter. Our results met these parameters giving a better understanding of
the problem, helping us apply theory to the real-world application.

18
Bibliography

Balsa :: MakeItFrom.com. (2018, August 2). Makeitfrom.com.

<https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/Balsa> [Accessed 2 April 2022]

2020. An Introduction to Stress and Strain. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=aQf6Q8t1FQE> [Accessed 5 April 2022].

2019. Understanding Young's Modulus. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=DLE-ieOVFjI> [Accessed 5 April 2022].

2022. Compressive stress-strain curves for balsa wood. [online] Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Compressive-stress-strain-curves-for-balsa-wood-b-
Tangential-compression-with_fig6_50832451> [Accessed 6 April 2022].

www.sciencedirect.com. (n.d.). Young’s Modulus - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. [online]

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/youngs-modulus. [Accessed 3 April
2022]

Podut, A. (2018). Stress and Strain. pressbooks.bccampus.ca. [online] Available at:

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/powr4406/chapter/stress-and-strain/ [Accessed 3 April 2022].

Callister, Rethwisch, Blicblau, Bruggeman, Cortie, Long, Hart, Marceau, Mitchell, Parvizi, De, R. 2021,
Materials science and engineering, 1st Australian and New Zealand edition, John Wiley & Sons
Australia. Available from: vbk://9780730382843

Appendix A

19
Meeting 1 - Friday 1/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: Wednesday 6/04/2022

Purpose

This meeting's purpose was to first establish what we were going to change and then familiarise
ourselves with the requirements of Project 1B. Lastly, to construct a loose design of our new beam
to be constructed on 4/04/2022.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Jake Delaney, Thomas Druhan

Missing: Matt Cordell

Next Meeting

The next meeting is Monday 4/04/2022. The agenda for this meeting was agreed on 4/04/2022 and
is to be the testing of our beam against the given criteria. It was also agreed that the observation of
other beams’ beams would be done constructed.

Meeting 2 - Monday 4/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: Thursday 6/04/2022

Purpose

The purpose of this meeting was to test our beam by applying a 24.5N load and measuring the
deflection. It was also to observe other teams' beam performance and to further the development
of our project report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Matt Cordell, Thomas Druhan, Jake Delaney

Missing: N/A

Agenda and List of Actions

Actions included the assignment of report sections to every team member and the specificities of
how that work is to be completed correctly.

Ownership

Christiaan Joubert: Appendix A, reflection, brainstorming and rationale, bibliography, the self-
assessment

Matt Cordell: Reflection, mapping of learning outcomes, bibliography, the self-assessment

Thomas Druhan: Description of the beam, reflection, the self-assessment, appendix B, results table,
results comparison, statement of purpose

Jake Delaney: Conclusion, bibliography, reflection, the self-assessment

Next Meeting

20
The next meeting is established to be on 7/04/2022 from 8:30pm - 9:00pm. The agenda for this
meeting is relaying information, advice and questions to teammates about the different sections of
the report. It will be an online meeting.

Meeting 3 - Thursday 7/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: 6/04/2022

Purpose

The purpose of this meeting was to share information, advice and questions about the completion of
the report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Matt Cordell, Thomas Druhan, Jake Delaney

Missing: N/A

Follow Up

All team members had contributed to the completion of assigned work, as established in the
previous meeting. Further mapping of the resolution of project 1B had been discussed.

Agenda and List of Actions

Formatting of reflection, brainstorming and results comparison was discussed. The inclusion of
additional researched information was addressed and specified with the whole team. This was then
referenced.

Ownership

Formatting of reflection: all team members

Additional Research: all team members

Appendix B

Young’s Modulus experiment from Week 3 beam testing:

21
 First, project 1A’s beam was tested against 0.1 to 0.5 kg weights to measure the appropriate
deflection. This was completed from both orientations.
Table 3: Results from week 3
beam testing

From this data, the load testing could be graphed against the deflection. From this graph, the
gradient could be calculated as the effective Young’s modulus of our beam. Both orientations were
averaged to get an overall approximate young’s modulus value of balsa used in the week 3 testing.

Load Against Deflection Graph 1: Load against

(horizontal and vertical beam orient- deflection for week 3 beam
ations)
6
5 Upright
f(x) = 2.57024682554739 x + 0.0664541969501702
f(x) = 1.90877520143556 x + 0.667795186657753Linear (Upright)
4
Load (N)

Sideways
3
Linear (Sideways)
2
1
0 Table 4: Approximate experimental
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
results for young’s modulus (note:
Deflection (mm)
2.2396GPa wasn’t used in week 6
and instead an industry value of
Appendix C 3.7GPa was used)

Print of excel design worksheet used for project 1B:

22
 Table 5: Second moment of
area calculations for both
week 3 and week 6 beam

Table 6: Deflection calculations for both week 3 and week 6 beam

Table 7: Maximum stress calculations for both week 3 and week 6 beam

23
 ENGG102 Team Ground Rules and Contract Form

For a team to be effective it is a requirement that all team members understand their responsibilities
to one another. It can be useful to discuss and agree on certain project ground rules.

All team members of T3T5 agree to:

1. Come to class and team meetings on time.

2. Come to meetings with assignments and other necessary preparations done.

3. Respect one another.

4. Help each other when the need arises.

5. Complete assigned components to the best of your ability.

6. Be open to suggestions of change/improvement to work that has been already completed by a

member.

7. Not remove or alter pieces of the report that other members are assigned to.

If a team member fails to meet these seven ground rules, other members are entitled to receive
monetary compensation and a written apology for their efforts and contributions. A group
discussion will be held to resolve the failed rules.

If not resolved, this must be communicated with the tutor and a discussion will be held between
the member who has violated the rules and the tutor to resolve the problem.

If still not resolved, there will be a discussion amongst all team members and the tutor to suggest
solutions to violating team laws. If an agreement cannot be settled, the tutor will bring the
problem to the attention of the subject coordinator who will resolve the issue.

Tutorial Number: 3 Team: 5

Member signatures:

1 2

3 4

24
 Self-Assessment Sheet
ENGG102 Project 1B Beam Design and Reflection Report: Assessment sheet

Tutorial number: 3 Tutors name: Kevin Marston

Team Number: 5 Date and time of exercise: 4/04/2022
Names and ID Numbers: Christiaan Joubert (7248386) Jake Delaney (7622430) Matthew
Cordell (7480556) Thomas Druhan (7326099)

Aspect Comment Mark

ENGG102 Project 1B Beam Minus 3 marks if this SELF Assessment
Design and Reflection Report: Sheet is not included with the Project 1B
Assessment sheet. Use PDF Design and Reflection Report
version from Moodle
Appendix A: Minutes of Team Minus 2 marks if Minutes of Team
Meetings (evidence of teamwork) Meetings (more than one!) are not
included with this Report
Appendix B: Young's Minus 5 marks if your Young’s Mod exp
Modulus Experiment results are not posted by deadline + all results
MUST also post by Deadline! & conclusions are not included with this
Report.
Appendix C: Excel Design Minus 2 marks if a print of your Excel
Worksheet Design Worksheet (Preliminary OR Final)
is not attached.
Structure of report, team 0.5 mark for each item 3-14
(see Report structure provided above) 6/6
information etc (as per “what
report should contain”)
Overall Presentation Neatness, Spelling, Grammar,
Diagrams, Professionalism
Don't forget the PHOTOS! 5/5
Relevant theory and model Must show evidence of at least two distinct
development (equations to design ideas and optimisation of chosen one.
predict deflection etc) Reasons Describe the principle behind the design. 8/10
for selection of prototype for Include all FBDs & calculations leading to
PRELIMINARY design. predicted deflection and maximum stress
values.
Description of PRELIMINARY Accurate line drawings or neat and clear
beam Drawing/sketches with sketches with all important dimensions
dimensions (should enable tutor to build the same 8/8
structure)
REDESIGN calculations and Include all FBDs & calculations leading to
justifications to meet new criteria predicted deflection and maximum stress
for FINAL beam design. values. Include any additional information eg if 7/10
beam design shape is changed.
Description of FINAL beam Revised accurate line drawings or neat and
Drawing/sketches with clear sketches with all important dimensions
5/5
dimensions (should enable tutor to build the same
structure)

25
Results including comparison Comparison table of all results. Discussion
with other team(s). WHAT of results with commentary on table and
happened! main factual findings. Describe the main 8/10
failure mechanisms.
Reflections – identify some To achieve top marks (26-34/34) in this
reasons for the performance of section your report must demonstrate clear
your beam and other teams. and insightful reflection considering own
WHY it happened! solution and others in the class.
Demonstrates further reading and
Consider the various aspects of
critical analysis. To achieve 19-25/34
the task (design, fabrication,
material use). Discuss how it your report must describe the
might be improved, what performances of your solution and some
knowledge might be needed, & others. 28/34
design criteria considered. Itemisation of knowledge gaps and some
critique of
designs.
To achieve 0-18/34: Simply describes own
solution with limited reference to other
beams.
Teamwork reflection in report Identifies models of teams e.g. from Smith (see
e-reading) Compares own team with recognised
models. Demonstrates awareness of how to 7/7
perform better as a team.
Conclusion 1 or 2 paragraphs that draw appropriate
conclusions from evidence presented in
report. Include the main results, both 5/5
numerical and qualitative.
Total 87/100

26