ENGG102 Project 2B: Cantilever Beam with Static Load

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

Tutor: Mr Kevin Marston

Title of Assignment: ENGG102: Project 2B Design of a

cantilevered beam structure to balance a
static load

Date and time due: 30/05/2022 – 11:59 pm

Tutorial Number: 3

Team Letter: T3T5

Total number of pages: 36

1
 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.
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. The submitting student undertakes to communicate all feedback with the other
team members.

Team Member Signature

Thomas Druhan

Matt Cordell

Christiaan Joubert

Jake Delaney

2
Self-Assessment Sheet
Tutorial number: 3
Tutors name: Kevin Marston
Team Number: 5
Date and time of exercise: 5:07pm 18/05/2022
Names and ID Numbers: Christiaan Joubert (7248386) Jake Delaney (7622430) Matthew Cordell
(7480556) Thomas Druhan (7326099)

Aspect Comment Mark

ENGG102 Project 2B Beam Minus 3 marks if this Self Assessment Sheet is not included
Design and Reflection with the Project 2B Design and Reflection Report. Use PDF
Report: version from Moodle.
Assessment sheet.
Draft report Minus 5 marks if you did not submit a thoughtful draft in
week 12.
Appendix A: Minutes of Minus 5 marks if Minutes of Team Meetings (more than
Team one!) are not included with this Report.
Meetings (evidence of
teamwork)
Appendix B: Friction Minus 5 marks if posting on eLearning not done by due
Experiment Results posted date.
by deadline
Appendix C: Cantilever Minus 2 marks if Excel Design Worksheet not included with
Beam this report. Also must be submitted with the draft report in
Design Spreadsheet week 12.
Week 11 Parameter and Minus 5 marks if your Parameter and results table is not
results submitted to your tutor by due time and date.
table form
Appendix D: Homework Minus 5 marks if your solutions to Task 4 Week 8
Problems Homework Problems not included with this Report.
Structure of report, team 5.0 marks for including all items 3 - 13 (ie; nominal 0.5
information etc (as per marks per item). (see Report structure provided above)
“what report should 5/5
contain” above)
Overall Presentation Neatness Spelling
Grammar Diagrams
Professionalism 4/4
Problem definition Define the problem. Identify concepts involved.
What you are able to calculate and what you assumed. 4/4
Analysis and calculations for Clearly present all calculations using the 6-step method.
preliminary beam design Include all appropriate FBDs with calculations to predict the
AND beam deflection AND total mass to give system equilibrium. 8/10
predictions for Must be ready at the start of tutorial in week 11.
counterbalance mass Submission in week 12.
allowing for friction affect.
Reasons for design of Describe the principle behind the design. Accurate line
preliminary beam. drawings with all important dimensions (should enable

3
 Description of 500 mm tutor to build the same structure) Must be ready at the
beam with start of tutorial in week 11. Submission in week 12. 6/8
drawing/sketches and
dimensions
Redesign calculations done Demonstrates the generic nature of the theory and model.
in tutorial in week 11 Can be a modified and simplified version of original
covering predicted preliminary 500mm design calculations including 7/8
deflection AND appropriate FBDs to predict the beam deflection
counterbalance mass AND total mass to give system equilibrium for new beam.
required.
Description of re-designed Describe the principle behind the design. Accurate line
beam drawings with all important dimensions (should enable 4/5
with drawing/sketches tutor to build the same structure)
dimensions
Results of final designs and Table of all results. Commentary on table and main factual
testing including comparison findings.
with other team(s) Describe main failure mechanisms and performance 7/10
achievements. Include a comparison of results and identify
the best designs.
Reflections identified WHY To achieve top marks( 30-36/36): Your report must
for performance (yours and demonstrate clear and insightful reflection considering own
other teams). Considered solution and others in the class.
the various aspects of the Demonstrates further reading and critical analysis.
task (problem definition, Considers methods to optimise design.
effect of friction, To achieve 20-30/36: Your report must describe the
ations, beam performances of your solution and some others.
fabrication, material use), Itemisation of knowledge gaps and some critique of designs 28/36
discussed how might be To achieve 0-19/36: Describes own solution with limited
improved, reference to other
what knowledge might be beams. Adopts a poor design.
needed..
Teamwork reflection in Identifies models of teams e.g. from Smith (see e-reading)
report: Include at least one Compares own team with recognised models.
paragraph Demonstrates awareness of how to perform better as a 5/5
from each team member. team.
Conclusion 1 or 2 paragraphs that draws appropriate conclusions from
evidence presented in report. 4/5
Total 82/100

Title Page

4
 ENGG102
Project 2 Attempt B
Design of a cantilevered beam structure to balance a static load

Contents Page

Self-Assessment Sheet...........................................................................................................................3
Title Page...............................................................................................................................................5

5
Contents Page.......................................................................................................................................6
Statement of Purpose............................................................................................................................7
Prediction Process (Preliminary)............................................................................................................7
Results.................................................................................................................................................11
Description of Beam............................................................................................................................12
Prediction Process (Re-design)............................................................................................................13
Description of Re-designed Beam........................................................................................................17
Results (Re-design)..............................................................................................................................19
Reflection............................................................................................................................................20
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................22
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................23
Appendix A..........................................................................................................................................23
Appendix B..........................................................................................................................................25
Appendix C..........................................................................................................................................30
Appendix D..........................................................................................................................................32

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of Project 2B is to initially redesign the cantilever beam used in Project 2A using certain
parameters. This is to be done using excel as a tool for a fast redesign. After the initial design, the
excel sheet is to be used to redesign a similar beam to a new set of parameters, then build and test

6
the beam. After this, an analysis of our results and other groups' results allows for the identification
of our flaws and successes in the design process.

Problem Definition: Re-design the cantilever beam used in Project 2A, however with an outstanding
length of 500mm to lift a hanging mass of 300g so that the beam deflects more than 2mm but less
than 6mm, making use of the engineering principles learned thus far.

Concepts involved in the beam design process include concepts of static equilibrium, friction and
beam mechanics. We were able to calculate the mass required for equilibrium, second moment of
area and deflection at the free end of the beam. We had to assume that the pulley was frictionless
and that the beam was perfectly constructed.

Prediction Process (Preliminary)

Position 1: 45 Degrees below Horizontal

Define: Determine the mass required to achieve equilibrium of the pulley with the beam at 45
degrees below horizontal, given a beam span of 500mm, hanging mass of 300g, pulley radius of
100mm, incline angle of 50 degrees and slider material of Brass, all using the six-step method.

Data:
❑
∑
❑
M =0 , F static =μ s N , F=ma , trigonometry

R=100mm, L=500mm, m=300g, M=?

Figure 1: System at 45 degrees

45

L
M

50
55
m

FBD 1: Forces acting on FBD 2: Forces acting

sliding mass around pulley
Mgsin50

7
 Mgcos50

50

Assumptions:

1. The weight of the beam is negligible.

2. Frictionless pulley.
3. The coefficient of dry friction for brass on steel is 0.4225 (from the slider experiment).
4. The system is in static equilibrium.
5. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m s−2

Estimate: The tension force acts at a moment arm of 0.1m to the pulley, while the hanging mass
force acts at a moment arm of 0.5m. The two are moments are in equilibrium, therefore ignoring
trigonometry:

F M R=F m L

MgR=mgL❑
( 9.81 ) (0.3 kg ) ( 0.5 )
M × 9.81= =14.715
( 0.1 )
14.715
M =1.5 kg
9.81

Solve:

Require component of force supplied by mass, m, perpendicular to beam:

F perpendicular =mg cos 4 5

¿ ( 0.3 kg ) ( 9.81m s−2 ) ( cos 4 5 )

¿ 2.081 N
Since static friction opposes the motion, the tension force is supplied by friction force plus weight
force down the incline:

F T =F s + Mg sin 50=μs N + Mg sin 50

The normal force is supplied by the component of weight force perpendicular to the surface,
therefore:

F T =( μ s Mg cos θ ) + ( Mg sin 50 )

¿ ( 0.4225 ) ( M ) ( 9.81 m s ) ( cos 5 0 ) + ( M ) ( 9.81m s ) ( sin 50 )

−2 −2

¿ M ( 2.66+ 7.51 )

8
 F tension=10.17 M

Take sum of moments with respect to the pulley to find slider mass required for equilibrium:
❑
∑
❑
M pulley =0=−F perpendicular L+ F tension R

0=−( 2.081 N )( 0.5 m ) + ( F tension) ( 0.1 m )

( 2.081 N ) ( 0.5 m)
F tension= =10.405 N
( 0.1m )
∴ F tenion =10.17 M =10.405 N

10.405
M= =1.02=1.02 kg
10.17
Verify:

The estimated mass of 1.5kg ignored trigonometry and static friction by assuming both masses were
hanging freely, therefore is more than the required mass of 1.02kg.

Position 2: Horizontal Beam

Define: Determine the mass required on the inclined plane to achieve equilibrium with the beam at
horizontal, using the six-step method.

Data:
❑
∑
❑
M =0, F static=μ s N , F=ma , trigonometry

R=100mm, L=500mm, m=300g, M=?

Diagram:

9
 Figure 2: System at 0 degrees
R

L
m

50
55

FBD 3: Forces acting on FBD 4: Forces acting on

sliding mass pulley

Mgsin50

Mgcos50

Estimate:

Entire force of mg is acting perpendicular to the moment arm, instead of just a component as seen in
position 1. Therefore, M > 1.02kg.

Solve:

Since static friction opposes motion, the tension force is supplied by friction force plus weight force
down incline:

F T =F s + Mg sin 50=μs N + Mg sin 50

The normal force is supplied by the component of weight force perpendicular to the surface,
therefore:

F T =( μ s Mg cos θ ) + ( Mg sin 50 )

¿ ( 0.4225 ) ( M ) ( 9.81 m s ) ( cos 5 0 ) + ( M ) ( 9.81m s ) ( sin 50 )

−2 −2

¿ M ( 2.66+ 7.51 )
F tension=10.17 M

10
Take sum of moments with respect to the pulley to find slider mass required for equilibrium:
❑
∑
❑
M pulley =0=−F L + Ftension R

0=−( mg ) ( 0.5 ) + ( Ftension ) ( 0.1 )

0=−( 0.3 ×9.81 ) ( 0.5 ) + ( F tenion ) ( 0.1 )

( 0.3× 9.81 ) ( 0.5 )

F tenion=
( 0.1 )
F tenion=14.715

∴ F tension =10.17 M =14.715

14.715
M= =1.44=1.44 kg
10.17
Verify: Estimated mass required was M>1.02kg. The calculated mass is 1.44kg, which confirms the
estimation.

Results
This was completed with our team's excel design sheet to quickly reach a design that met the
deflection requirements. Below are all results for the design calculations considered for the
preliminary beam before the redesign.

Table 1: Results table for preliminary design

Key given information:
Youngs Modulus for Balsa (Pa) 3000000000
Length of span (m) 0.5
Hanging mass (kg) 0.3
Acceleration due to Gravity (ms^-2) 9.81 Key Variable Constant
Total width b (m) 0.075
Total height h (m) 0.0375
Vertical piece height d (m) 0.036
Vertical piece thickness t_w (m) 0.0065
Horizontal piece thickness t_f (m) 0.0015
Second moment for whole beam (m^4): 5.355825E-08
Deflection at free end (m): 0.0007631877
Required counterbalancing mass (kg):
Maximum bending moment (Nm): -1.4715
Maximum stress (N/m^2): -515151.72732
Second Moment of Area Calculation:

(t ¿ ¿ f ∗( b )3 )
I =( ( h−t f )∗( t w )3 ) + ¿
12

(( 0.0375−0.0015 )∗( 0.0065 )3 ) + ( 0.0015∗( 0.075 )3 )

I=
12

11
 8 4 20 4
I ≈ 5.36∗10 m ∨5.36∗10 mm
Deflection at Free End Calculation:

P L3
δ=
3 EI

( 0.3∗9.81 )∗( 0.5 )3

δ= 9 8
3∗(3∗10 )(5.36∗10 )
δ ≈ 0.00076 m∨0.76 mm
As can be concluded, our teams predicted deflection for the preliminary design didn’t meet the 2-
6mm deflection target. As can be later seen through the construction of our redesigned beam, all of
our alternative shapes met the deflection target of 2-5mm.

Description of Beam
This preliminary beam was a T shape beam that was clamped to one end and stiffened across
approximately 80mm. It had an outstand length of 500mm where a 300g mass would hang off the
free end to produce a deflection within the range of 2-6mm.

Materials that were theoretically used in this design included 1 Balsa sheet (450mm*75mm*1.5mm),
4 Balsa rods (900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm), and 2 Balsa rods (900mm*5mm*5mm).

Our design aimed to incorporate the maximum strength in the vertical axis with minimal materials to
reduce costs. Then, calculations were made to aim to achieve the overarching goal of deflection in
the beam from 2mm to 6mm.

Figure 3: Labelled diagram of preliminary beam

Volume of Wood Calculation:

V = A cross−section∗L

V = ( ( 1.5∗75 ) + ( 4∗6.5∗6.5 ) + ( 2∗5∗5 ) )∗(580)

12
 3
V =192270 m m

Prediction Process (Re-design)

400mm span, 250g weight, less than 45mm height.

Position 1: 45 Degrees Below Horizontal

Define: Determine the mass required to achieve equilibrium of the pulley with the beam at 45
degrees below horizontal, given a beam span of 500mm, hanging mass of 300g, pulley radius of
100mm, incline angle of 50 degrees and slider material of Brass, all using the six-step method.

Data:
❑
∑
❑
M =0 , F static =μ s N , F=ma , trigonometry,

R=100mm, L=400mm, m=250g, M=?

Figure 4: System at 45 degrees

45

L
M

50
55
m

FBD 1: Forces acting on FBD 2: Forces acting

sliding mass around pulley
Mgsin50

Mgcos50

50

Assumptions:

1. Weight of beam is negligible.

13
 2. Frictionless pulley.
3. Coefficient of dry friction for brass on steel is 0.4225 (from slider experiment).
4. System is in static equilibrium.
5. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m s−2

Estimate: The friction force acts at a moment arm of 0.1m to the pulley, while the hanging mass
force acts at a moment arm of 0.4m. The two are moments are in equilibrium, therefore ignoring
trigonometry:

F M R=F m L

MgR=mgL❑
( 9.81 ) (0.25) ( 0.4 )
M × 9.81= =9.81
( 0.1 )
9.81
M =1.00 kg
9.81
Solve:

Require component of force supplied by mass, m, perpendicular to beam:

F perpendicular =mg cos 4 5

¿ ( 0.25 kg ) ( 9.81m s ) ( cos 4 5 )

−2

¿ 1.73 N
Since static friction opposes motion, the tension force is supplied by friction force plus weight force
down incline:

F T =F s + Mg sin 50=μs N + Mg sin 50

The normal force is supplied by the component of weight force perpendicular to the surface,
therefore:

F T =( μ s Mg cos θ ) + ( Mg sin 50 )

¿ ( 0.4225 ) ( M ) ( 9.81 m s−2 ) ( cos 5 0 ) + ( M ) ( 9.81m s−2 ) ( sin 50 )

¿ M ( 2.66+ 7.51 )
F tension=10.17 M

Take sum of moments with respect to the pulley to find slider mass required for equilibrium:
❑
∑
❑
M pulley =0=−F perpendicular L+ F tension R

0=−( 1.73 N )( 0.4 m )+ ( F tension ) ( 0.1 m)

( 1.73 N ) ( 0.4 m )
F tension= =6.92 N
( 0.1 m )

14
 ∴ F tenion =10.17 M =6.92 N

6.92
M= =0.68=0.68 kg
10.17
Verify: Estimated mass of 1.0kg ignored friction force on the incline, therefore more than the real
mass (0.68kg)

Position 2: Horizontal Beam

Define: Determine the mass required on the inclined plane to achieve equilibrium with the beam at
horizontal, using the six-step method.

Data:
❑
∑
❑
M =0, F static =μ s N , F=ma , trigonometry

R=100mm, L=400mm, m=250g, M=?

Diagram:

Figure 5: System at 0 degrees

R

L
m

50
55

FBD 3: Forces acting on FBD 4: Forces acting on

sliding mass pulley

15
 Mgsin50

Mgcos50

Estimate:

The entire force of mg is acting perpendicular to the moment arm, instead of just a component as
seen in position 1. Therefore, M > 0.68kg.

Solve:

Since static friction opposes motion, the tension force is supplied by friction force plus weight force
down incline:

F T =F s + Mg sin 50=μs N + Mg sin 50

The normal force is supplied by the component of weight force perpendicular to the surface,
therefore:

F T =( μ s Mg cos θ ) + ( Mg sin 50 )

¿ ( 0.4225 ) ( M ) ( 9.81 m s−2 ) ( cos 5 0 ) + ( M ) ( 9.81m s−2 ) ( sin 50 )

¿ M ( 2.66+ 7.51 )
F tension=10.17 M

Take sum of moments with respect to the pulley to find slider mass required for equilibrium:
❑
∑
❑
M pulley =0=−F L + Ftension R

0=−( mg ) ( 0.4 ) + ( F tension ) ( 0.1 )

0=−( 0.3 ×9.81 ) ( 0.4 )+ ( Ftenion ) ( 0.1 )

( 0.3× 9.81 ) ( 0.5 )

F tenion=
( 0.1 )
F tenion=11.772

∴ F tension=10.17 M =11.772

16
 11.772
M= =1.15=1.15 kg
10.17
Verify: Estimated mass required was M>0.68kg. The calculated mass is 1.15kg, which confirms the
estimation.

Table 2: Summary of deflection results for both the preliminary design beam and the redesigned
beam.

Position 1 Position 2
Preliminary Design 1.02kg 1.44kg
Redesign 0.68kg 1.15kg

Description of Re-designed Beam

This redesigned beam was a T shape beam that was clamped to one end and stiffened across
approximately 80mm. It had an outstand length of 400mm and a final length of 10mm after the
notch where a 250g mass would hang off the free end to produce a deflection within the range of 2-
5mm.

Materials that were used in this design included 1 Balsa sheet (450mm*75mm*1.5mm) and 4 Balsa
rods (900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm).

Our design aimed to incorporate the maximum strength in the vertical axis with minimal materials to
reduce costs. Then, calculations were made to aim to achieve the overarching goal of deflection in
the beam from 2mm to 5mm.

Figure 6: Labelled diagram of redesigned beam

17
Volume of Wood Calculation:

V = A cross−section∗L

V = ( ( 3∗37.5 )+ ( 4∗6.5∗6.5 ) )∗(490)

3
V =137 935 mm

18
 Results (Re-design)

Table 3: All teams results from redesign

Position 1 (Minus 45°) Position 2 (0°) Deflection Comments

T Type of Free 2nd Inclined Slider Pulley Hanging Actual RATIO of Actual RATIO of Initial Final loaded Total RATIO of Observations -
Beam Length Moment Plane Friction Radius Mass Counter Prediction vs. Counter Prediction unloaded deflection deflection Prediction
E Anything
(L) of Area Angle Material (B, used Mass Actual Mass vs. Actual deflection vs. Actual
(Unequal (m in g) (mm) (δ in mm) unusual
A A, S, (R) incl incl
I or Tee) (mm) (I) (θ in (mm) explaining
W)/Friction Slider Slider
M degrees) ( mm) WHAT
(mm^4) (M in g) (M in g)
Coefficient happened and
WHY

1 I 400 5305.8 50 B 90 250 1515 1 2195 4 0 4 4 1.7 -

2 I 400 25002.0 50 S 90 250 1220 1.25 1496 1.95 0 4 4 0.9 -

3 T 400 3213.4 50 A 100 250 2123 1.08 1923 1.3 0 2.4 2.4 0.6 -

4 T 400 4854.2 50 W 100 250 1209 0.86 1409 0.94 0 5.9 5.9 1.86 -

5 T 400 6692.3 50 B 100 250 1410 1 1000 1 0 4 4 1.25 -

6 T 400 3638.3 50 S 100 250 1300 1 1650 0.87 0 3.5 3.5 1.34 -

7 T 400 6368.0 50 A 90 250 1328 1.03 1423 1.02 0 5 5 1.78 -

19
20
Reflection

Reflecting on our team’s initial response to the 370mm cantilever beam problem in week 7, this was
more difficult than we expected. However, in this scenario, we were able to learn from the past and
critique certain factors that were influencing the deflection when tested. These included counter
mass, the span of beam, type of beam, the volume of wood used and second moment of area.

Importantly, this time around, the preprepared excel design sheet allowed us to rapidly produce a
new design that meets the new performance criteria. The method for design was generalised to
cover only the factors that altered the deflection. These were the thickness of the vertical
component, the thickness of the horizontal component, the width of the beam and the height of the
beam. In combination with testing sample designs against the excel sheet, our team was easily able
to determine a combination of material measurements that produced a deflection between 2mm
and 5mm on the day of testing.

A way of generalising this approach to problem-solving could be completed for any new engineering
design problem simply by following these important steps.

 Determine the goal of the experiment

 Work out what parameters will help achieve that goal
 Develop a spreadsheet to test these parameters
 Make immediate calculations of the outcome with given parameters
 Compare with criteria that is listed
 Reflect on your performance
 Draw a conclusion and make a judgement

Arguably, the most difficult part of redesigning this beam was setting up the excel template so that
everything was calculated automatically. After some trial and error and various other tests, our team
had a fully functional deflection, second moment and stress calculator for any beam we could make.
This ultimately alleviated the stress of construction when trying to make our design to specifications
simply based on conceptual knowledge. Instead, we were able to use accurate, calculated data.

Ass outlined, our team had avoided this difficulty in the final attempt due to greater conceptual
knowledge and the excel design sheet.

A safe assessment can be made that our team's beam performed above average when compared to
other teams’ beams on the day. Given some teams did not have an accurate and fully functional
excel design sheet, this made it hard for them to construct and test accurately.

In relation to the results table listed above, every team apart from one managed to meet the new
deflection criteria. This was a remarkable performance from the whole tutorial. The deflection was
recorded the same between teams 1, 2 and our team despite a change of beam type. There was
much initial debate about the choice of beam, and it would have arguably been better to construct
an unequal I-flange beam compared to a T beam in hindsight. This can be due to the distribution of
weight that an unequal I-flange beam would have compared to a T beam.

Consequently, our team performed relatively well in predicting the required counterbalance mass to
achieve equilibrium. We conclude this by comparing our ratio with other groups, where we fall
slightly above average in accuracy. Our calculations show that a greater mass is required when the

21
beam is at a horizontal angle, which supports the theory of a longer moment arm results in a larger
moment, given the applied force remains constant. Our experimental masses were on average 74%
larger than our calculated masses. Other groups had a difference ranging from 2% up to 612%,
meaning our difference of 74% shows relative accuracy in calculations. This disparity in accuracy is
due to using varying values for slider friction coefficient for the same material, as well as
miscalculating the second moment of area of the beam.

If repeated this project another time, it is safe to say that our team would have chosen an unequal I-
flange beam based on the positive performance of our I beam in project 2A. In addition, the quality
of manufacturing could be improved when repeated such as further maximising the volume of balsa
wood required compared to the volume of balsa wood used to construct the beam. It is now further
collectively understood that the volume of wood used contributes to the results.

It could be said that in this redesign phase of the project, our team behaved more conservative than
we did with project 2A. However, this is mostly because all the calculations were completed prior to
the testing and even the construction of the beam. We determine that this more conservative
approach is still valid with our assumptions and criteria given our situation.

Our understanding of how sliding masses behave on inclined surfaces has been enhanced through
the experiment. An object placed on an inclined surface will often slide freely down the surface. The
rate at which the object slides down the surface is dependent upon how inclined the surface is; the
greater the angle of inclination is, the faster the rate at which the object will slide down it. In physics,
objects are known to accelerate down inclined planes because of an unbalanced force. To
understand this type of motion, it is important to analyse the forces acting upon an object on an
inclined plane. These were; the force of gravity provided by mass, the normal force and the frictional
force or, in this scenario, the force of tension.

Prior to this experiment, the understanding was that tension force is supplied by the force of friction
as well as the force due to gravity down the slope. However, by calculating and performing the
experiment it was learnt that the force of gravity down the slope supplies a force of friction, which
then supplies tension force in the wire that runs through the pulley system. An in-depth reading of
‘Chapter 8 of Fundamentals of Engineering Mechanics, T.McCarthy’ supplements the responses to
friction problems, and will help fill knowledge and conceptual gaps before the second attempt.

Without a doubt there are still some gaps in our understanding yet in hindsight, our team was able
to produce an extensive design sheet and met the criteria in the real-world application and testing.
Knowledge was demonstrated in both areas. Further research and understanding about how beams
can operate under loads could be completed to yield improved results however, there would be little
to change if repeated again.

Our team learnt that rougher surfaces have a higher coefficient of friction. This makes sense in terms
of a model in which friction is described as arising from chemical bonds between the atoms of the
two surfaces at their points of contact: very flat surfaces allow more atoms to come in contact.

The main variables that induced a disparity in calculation results are which value for the coefficient
of friction and elasticity modulus were used. To further improve, using a range for the coefficient of
friction and modulus elasticity instead of a fixed value would yield more accurate predictions, as the
real coefficient of friction of the slider material used may fall within that range. That way, we would
be able to generate a deflection that is more closely aligned with our experimental value.

22
Lastly, we understood the importance of constructing a larger vertical beam as it generally creates
greater deflection.

Our team thought about this classic inclined theory from first principles.

Consider a mass, m, sitting on an inclined plane. If the direction of motion of the mass is down the
plane, then the frictional force F will act up the plane.

 N = normal force exerted on the body by the plane due to the force of gravity i.e. mg cos θ
 f = frictional force
 mg = mass x gravity

The weight of the mass is ‘mg’ and this will cause another 2 forces to act on itself, these being N and
mg sin θ.

Due to the conservation of energy laws, the forces up the plane equal the forces down the plane. (f =
mg sin θ).

Also, due to the conservation of forces, forces up equal forces down (N = mg cos θ).

When dividing these two equations, above we get: F/N = tan θ. Therefore, tan θ = µ where µ is the
coefficient of friction.

By gradually increasing θ until the mass begins sliding down the plane, the value of θ will be
converted to the limiting angle of repose. Now with this angle, the maximum value of µ for static
friction can be obtained.

Conclusion

The goal of this experiment was to determine the deflection of a balsa beam when a counter mass
was hung from a pulley to achieve equilibrium. Another critical part was to determine the mass
required to achieve equilibrium of the pulley with the beam at 45 degrees below horizontal as well
as testing at 0 degrees below the horizontal. Parameters that altered these measurements included
the given beam span of 500mm, the hanging mass of 300g, the pulley radius of 100mm, the incline
angle of 50 degrees and the slider material of brass.

In addition to this, our team had to redesign the cantilever beam used in Project 2A using these
parameters and chose a T cross-sectional shape.

However, although our beam had a greater volume, it did reach the desired deflection, having a
deflection of 4mm when the beam was 0 degrees to the horizontal, and 4mm when the beam was
45 degrees below the horizontal. Both variations met the criteria of the experiment.

In conclusion, this experiment was a success as accuracy in calculations allowed us to achieve all set
goals from the parameters provided. Our experiment achieved equilibrium and has shown our team
the importance of applying theory to the real world and the situations that may arise as an engineer.

23
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

Engineering ToolBox. (2004). Friction and Friction Coefficients. Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html

Properties: Aluminum - Advantages and Properties of Aluminum. (2019). Properties: Aluminum -

Advantages and Properties of Aluminum. AZoM.com. https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?
ArticleID=1446

Balsa | WoodSolutions. (n.d.). Www.woodsolutions.com.au.

https://www.woodsolutions.com.au/wood-species/hardwood/balsa

Parinam, H. (n.d.). Beam and Types of Beams. Mechanical Education. Retrieved May 26, 2022, from
http://www.mechanicaleducation.com/2019/05/beam-types-of-beams.html

Friction on an inclined plane. (n.d.). Www.engineerstudent.co.uk.

http://www.engineerstudent.co.uk/friction_on_an_inclined_plane.php#:~:text=Consider%20a
%20mass%20m%20lying

24
Appendix A
Team Minutes:

Meeting 1 - Monday 09/05/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 26/05/2022

Purpose

This meeting's purpose was to develop an adequate excel design sheet to account for major factors
of the beam to be constructed next week. These included automatic calculations of second moment
of area, deflection, mass equilibrium, maximum bending moment and maximum stress of beam. We
also assigned the first 1-8 parts of the report evenly amongst the team for completion by next week.

Attendance and Apologies

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

Missing: N/A

Next Meeting

The next meeting is Monday 16/05/2022. The agenda for this meeting was agreed upon on
09/05/2022 and was an in-class meeting where our team discussed the completion of tasks from the
meeting on 09/05/2022 to be on track to construct our beam.

Meeting 2 - Monday 16/05/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 26/05/2022

Purpose

The purpose of this meeting was to build our teams redesigned beam to be tested in a week’s time.
There were numerous factors that contributed to the success of this meeting and a successful beam.
Because of our preprepared excel design, we were confident that for the second time we would
meet the deflection requirements.

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 remaining report sections to every team member and the
specificities of how that work is to be completed correctly. The teams' calculations were discussed at
length.

Ownership

25
Christiaan Joubert: Appendix A, reflection, calculations, bibliography, the self-assessment

Matt Cordell: Reflection, subject mapping, bibliography, the self-assessment

Thomas Druhan: Statement of purpose, reflection, the self-assessment, results table, calculations,
bibliography

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

calculations

Next Meeting

The next meeting was established to be on 23/05/2022 from 2:30 pm – 5:30 pm. The agenda for this
meeting was testing the beam against the system, relaying information, advice and questions to
teammates about the different sections of the report.

Meeting 3 - Monday 23/05/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 26/05/2022

Purpose

This meeting's purpose was to test the cantilevered system in class and record our decisions and
results to talk about in the report. It was to also 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 the project was heavily discussed.

Agenda and List of Actions

Formatting of reflection and the comparison of the results were 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

26
Appendix B
Results & answers to questions from friction experiment:

REPORT SUBMISSION SHEET:

Tutorial Class: 3 Team: 5 Date: 2/05/2022

Group Members: Christiaan Joubert (7248386) Jake Delaney (7622430) Matthew Cordell (7480556)
Thomas Druhan (7326099)

NOTE: This Report Submission Sheet MUST be completed AND attached as Appendix B: to the
your Project 2B Draft Design Report due in week 12

Aim:

To determine the average coefficient of friction of the ramp with different material sliders.

Table 1: Static Friction - Aluminium Sliding Block: (L = 495 mm)

Test Number Height (mm) (radians) s Mean

value
1 0g 170 0.1116 0.3657
of s
2 50g 165 0.1082 0.3536
3 100g 160 0.1048 0.3416
4 200g 150 0.0980 0.3180 0.3302
5 500g 130 0.0846 0.2722

Table 2: Static Friction - Brass Sliding Block: (L = 495 mm)

Test Number Height (mm) (radians) s Mean

value
1 0g 200 0.4159 0.4417
of s
2 50g 197 0.4093 0.4338
3 100g 195 0.4049 0.4286
4 200g 186 0.3840 0.4055 0.4225
5 500g 185 0.3822 0.4029

Table 3: Static Friction - Wood Sliding Block: (L = 495 mm)

Test Number Height (mm) (radians) s Mean

value
1 0g 161 0.3312 0.3058

27
 2 50g 144 0.2955 0.4052
of s
3 100g 137 0.2807 0.3049
4 200g 135 0.2764 0.3048 0.3251
5 500g 130 0.2665 0.3047

Table 4: Static Friction - Steel Sliding Block: (L = 495 mm)

Test Number Height (mm) (radians) s Mean

value
1 0g 187 0.3764 0.3666
of s
2 50g 176 0.3893 0.4068
3 100g 177 0.3245 0.3157
4 200g 184 0.3587 0.3663 0.3668
5 500g 182 0.3876 0.3568

28
 Table 5: Static Friction – Adjusting the Normal Force, Data: (L = 495 mm)

50g Load 100g Load 200g Load 500g Load

Material Height Height Height Height

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Aluminium 165 160 150 130

Brass 197 195 186 185

Wood 144 137 135 130

Steel 176 177 184 182

Table 6: Static Friction – Adjusting the Normal Force, Results: (L = 495 mm)

No Load 50g Load 100g Load 200g Load 500g Load Average
(Tables 1-4)

Material s s s s s s

Aluminium 0.3657 0.3536 0.3416 0.3180 0.2722 0.3302

Brass 0.4417 0.4338 0.4286 0.4055 0.4029 0.4225

Wood 0.3058 0.4052 0.3049 0.3048 0.3047 0.3251

Steel 0.3666 0.4068 0.3157 0.3663 0.3568 0.3668

Questions:

What do you conclude regarding the effect of normal force on the maximum static friction force?

Static friction magnitude is directly proportional to the normal force magnitude and the
roughness between the

sliding surfaces. The coefficient of friction is the ratio of the magnitude of frictional force divided
by the

normal force magnitude.

What relationship do you use to determine the coefficient of static friction?

f s=f s max=μs N

29
 fs
∴ μ s=
N
Coefficient of friction is proportional to the frictional force and inversely proportional to the
normal force.

What is the link between the angle of the inclined plane and the Coeff of friction?

tanθ=μ s

So, the coefficient of static friction is equal to the tangent of the angle at which the objects slide.

Give three everyday examples where a low coefficient of friction is important?

- Rotating bearings
- Ice skating
- Skiing

Give three everyday examples where a high coefficient of friction is important?

- Drilling
- When driving a vehicle
- Rock climbing

How can you use this information to identify the counter mass required for Project 2B?

-Assume an equilibrium state.

-Use angle and coefficient in force equations to find the forces perpendicular to the pulley.

-Take sum of the moments with respect to the pulley.

-Equate to find variable of mass.

30
Appendix C
Excel design sheet (with beam and sliding mass calculations – separate sheets)

Link to sheet: Working spreadsheet for beams.xlsx

31
32
Appendix D
Additional homework problems:

33
34
35
36
37
38