XLIX

Engineering Design Firm

9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223

Transmittal
Date:
Section:
To:
From:
Subject:

1201 004
Bill Lindsey
Alexis Carswell

Sarah Grempels, Craig Berwick, Parker Correll, Ludgi Eugene

Beam Technical Report

We are
submitting:

Date

Memorandum

Design Package

Problem Set

Report - Draft
Report - Final

Test Data Sheet

Other: Enter Other Item

Extra Credit

Description
Beam Technical Report- Draft
Beam Technical Report- Final
Click here to enter text.

These are transmitted as checked below:

Individual Assignment

Team Assignment -- Team No.

___1_____-_

For grading
For review/comment
Other: Enter
Description

Beam Technical Report

Sarah Grempels, Craig Berwick, Parker Correll, Ludgi Eugene

Bill Lindsey
Alexis Carswell
11/24/15

Introduction to Engineering Practices and Principles 1

1201-004

Date: 11/23/15
Date: 11/24/2015
Table of Contents

Abstract
Figure 1.1 - Beam Configuration
Introduction
Background Information
Method and Procedures
Observations and Results
Table 1.1 Calculated Values
Table 1.2 Bill of Materials
Table 1.3 Calculations and Cost Estimates
Table 1.4 Decision Matrix
Figure 1.2 Failed I-beam
Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendations
Reference
Appendix
Figure 1.1 Beam Configuration
Figure 1.2 Failed I-beam
Figure 1.3 Excel Beam Calculator ex.
Figure 1.4 Construction of I-beam

Abstract

I dont know how we should do this, page

Numbers? Or just listing it?

The purpose of the Beam Project was to design, construct, and test a small wooden beam with a team. The
process involved creating a Gantt Chart, as our project plan, an Excel Beam Calculator, a Bill of Materials
and a Test Data Sheet. Each individual member of the team had to design three different beam
configurations and submit an Individual Design Package. As a team, another Design Package was written
with the best beam configuration each member designed, which included the chosen I-Beam that will be
constructed and tested. Using the decision matrix as one of the main tools, the beam constructed for this
project was an I-Beam designed by Craig Berwick. In Figure 1.1, the measurements of the I-beam
configuration are displayed.

Figure 1.1- Chosen I-beam

On test day, the designed I-beam weighed approximately 145g. As weight was applied, the beam failed to
meet the load requirement of 425 lb. and broke at 350 lbs. For future reference, the following
recommendations should be taken into account: If an I-Beam is being designed, a thick web should be
used because it gives the beam a greater stability; when constructing the beam, be sure that the web and
flanges are properly aligned when glued to keep the beam from twisting from the pressure of the load.
These recommendations have been provided due to the lessons learned. When the construction of the
beam is incorrect, the calculations do not guarantee the correct results. The calculations for the design
showed that the beam could support the load within the deflection allowed, but as the results show, it
failed on the test day. Another lesson learned was looking at the initial designs, checking to see if it could
be optimized, showing where the design needs to be improved, and insuring that the design selected will
yield the best results.
Introduction
The Beam Project was a team effort, which asked the individual and the team to design, construct, and
test a small wooden beam. Each individual member was assigned to design three different beam
configurations and present their best design to the team. A decision matrix was used to choose the best
beam design to construct. The different types of beams that were used in the design for this project are the
I-beam, H-beam, box beam, and hollow beam. The design requirement of the beam includes designing it
in a way that the cross-section is symmetrical to the centroid axes and does not exceed 2 x 2. For the
design to be successful, the performance requirements on test day, have to be taken into account. Each
team was provided with a beam number, in this case 150806, which states the design requirements. This
list includes

X-Axis Load: 425lb

Y-Axis Load: 200lb

Beam Weight Restriction: 270g

X-Axis Deflection:
min = 0.06in
Cost Limit: $11.50
Span Length: 21in

max = 0.250in

Other requirements taken into account are the height to base ratio, in this case it could not exceed 2.5, and
the length of the basswood of 24 in. To construct the final beam, every team was given basswood from
the 1201 lumber-yard, all depending on the final Beam Design Package and the Bill of Materials. The
construction of the beam includes the constraint of only using the materials of wood, clamps, a hobby
knife, tools, and Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue found in the Discovery Box, given by the instructor. The
pieces of basswood will have to be glued together to form the finalized Beam design, which the team
decided on. For this project, the assumption of the basswood having a modulus of elasticity of
6
1.46 10 psi and a density of 28 lbm /ft

had to be made. Some more assumptions were made for

the quality and properties of the basswood to be high quality and function properly. On test day, it is
assumed that the load with be applied as a single point load at mid-span.
Background Information
For the Beam Project, the beam theory had to be researched and learned. There are multiple different
equations that go into calculating beams. In this project, the only equations used are the ones which apply
to simply supported beams. The design process of a beam includes having to calculate the Inertia and the
Deflection of the beam. Different styles of beams are computed in different ways, with the exception of
the formulas staying the same. The equation for Inertia is represented in equation (1) and the Deflection
formula is shown in equation (2).

I=

b h3
12

(1)
4

In equation (1), I=moment of Inertia of axis perpendicular to load P ( , b=base (in), and h=height
(in). In equation (2), P= concentrated load (

lb f ), L=span length of beam (in), and E= modulus of

elasticity ( lb f / .

P L3
48 EI

To find the inertia of a hollow box beam, simply calculate the

the

(2)

I x of the overall box, and then subtract

I x of the negative space inside the box (1201 Faculty, 2015).

I x (Hollow Box beam)=

bo h o 3 b n h n 3

12
12

(Note: o= overall & n=negative)

To find the inertia of a H-beam, Simply divide the H-beam into components, each of which has its
centroid aligned with the X-axis, then sum the individual

I x to obtain the aggregate I (1201 Faculty,

x

2015).

2b 1 h13 b2 h23
I x (H beam )=

12
12
To find the inertia of a I-Beam, Calculate the
the

I x of the overall cross section area, and then subtract

I x of the negative areas from the overall (1201 Faculty, 2015).

3

b h
2b h
I x (I beam)= o o n n
12
12

(Note: o= overall & n=negative)

The deflection formula stays the same and is used with all simply supported beams regardless of design.
Methods and Procedures
The first step to any project is to layout the steps needed to complete the project. Each member created a
Gantt chart to display the project plan. To make the calculations for the different beam designs easier, the
Excel beam calculator was also completed. Each individual member had to design three different beam
configurations that would meet the performance requirements given to the team. Of the three different
designs, only two could be the same beam type. Each member then proceeded creating an individual
beam design package, which outlined the three different beam designs and provided more detail on the
project. To provide a more detailed lay out of the beams, a computer generated VISIO drawing had to be
created for each design. At the end of the design package, a decision matrix was created as a tool to
choose which of the three beams was the best design. The best beam of each member was then presented
to the rest of the group. With another decision matrix, each members top beam was compared to one
another, and the top ranking beam was chosen as the final beam to construct and test. The project
proceeded with a team design package, which outlined the best beam from each member, provided details
on the beams, displayed the Bill of Materials for each beam, and showcased the beam that they decided
would meet the specific performance requirements. Once the bill of materials was complied, the team
received basswood from the 1201 lumber yard to construct the beam. To construct the beam, the team met
and started out by gluing a flange to the web and clamping the two pieces of wood together for twentyfour hours. After the time was up, the team met again to release the clamps, glue the other flange to the
other side of the web, and clamp the whole beam together for another twenty-four hours. The constructed
beam was then tested and a test data sheet had to be compiled. The results, final designs, and feedback
were then analyzed and drawn together in a Beam Technical Report.

Observations and Results

The following results correlate to the finalized I-Beam structure, designed by Craig Berwick, and tested
and constructed by the entire team.

Given Values

X-Axis Load: 425lb

Y-Axis Load: 200lb
Beam Weight Restriction: 270g
X-Axis Deflection:
min = 0.06in
Cost Limit: $11.50
Span Length: 21in

max = 0.250in

Beam Length: 24in

Calculated Values

Ix

Iy

.044 4

.610

Safety Factor

Volume

Mass

.173
4

.325

35%

19.5 3

153.323 g

.234
Table 1.1 Calculated Values for chosen I-beam
The chosen I-beam, which was constructed and tested, was carefully chosen using the following tables as
some of the main comparison tools.
Joints

Basswoo
d

Basswoo
d

Basswoo
d

Basswoo
d

Basswoo
d

Basswoo
d

Total
Cost

1.25 x .
1875
$1.70

1.375 x .
25
$2.48

Cost
$0.50
Sarah
2
Craig
2
Parker
2
Ludgi
2
2
Table 1.2 Bill of Materials
Beam
Configuration on
Primary Axis

1.5 x .25
$2.70
2

1.25 x .
25
$2.25
1
1

1.25 x .
3125
$2.82

1 x .25
$1.80

Calculated
Mass

lb m

Calculated
Volume

ft 3

Total Cost
of Wood
and Glue
Joints

X-Axis
Calculations

I(

Y-Axis
Calculations

( )

I-beam 1 (Sarah)
I-beam 2 (Craig)

0.413
2
0.338

I-beam 3 (Parker)

0.465

$9.55
$6.85
$9.22
$6.55

0.014
8
0.011

25.5

$9.55

19.5

$6.85

0.015
8
0.011

27.4

$9.22

()

0.120
4
0.173

0.142
3
0.043

.
18579
0.610

0.476 0.138
6
6
I-beam 4 (Ludgi) 0.338 153.3
19.5
$6.55
0.341 0.164
2
6
4
Table 1.3 Engineering Calculations and Cost Estimates for each design alternative

0.143
8
0.062
8

0.275
6
0.420
9

Relative
Weight

187.4
2
153.3
2
211.20

I(

Evaluation
Criteria

Craig

0.466
5
0.325

Sarah

Ludgi

Parker

Ratin
g

Scor
e

Ratin
g

Scor
e

Ratin
g

Scor
e

Ratin
g

Scor
e

10%

Cost

.5

0.4

.5

.4

30%

Deflection

1.5

0.9

1.5

0.9

15%

Safety

.6

0.6

.45

.3

10%

Volume

.5

0.5

.3

.3

15%

Mass

.75

0.75

.75

.3

20%

Strength

.8

0.8

.8

.6

100%

Totals:

Table 1.4 Decision Matrix

4.65

3.95

4.3

2.8

As a result, the beam failed to past the test. The beam was to weak to hold the force of the 425 lb.
load, and broke at 350 Ib.

Figure 1.2 Failed I-Beam

Percent Difference can not be calculated since the beam failed and we dont have a actual calculation but

.173
Actual .173

the formula is as follows: Percent Difference

100

Discussion

The results achieved werent desirable. Our beam held up to until 350 pounds, when the center of the
beam twisted and snapped off one of the flanges. The theoretical deflection of the beam at a load of 425
lbs was .173 in. The experimental deflection was not able to be recorded since the beam broke before it
reached 425 lbs. The reason the beam was not able to meet the weight constraint, of 425 lbs, was because
the web and flanges of the beam was to thin. If the beam was thicker it would have a smaller deflection.
This would reduce the likelihood of the beam breaking. The glue joints on the beam could have been
made better too. To create a better glue joint, the 2 flanges have to be completely perpendicular to the web
and the flanges have to be centered on the center of the web. These changes would have created a much
stronger beam that could of held up against the 425 lbs weight constraint.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This project as a whole helped strengthen the idea of working in a team. Each individual group received
different design requirements which had to be used to pass the testing of the beam. The requirements for
beam 150806 were that the beams cross section could not exceed 2x 2 and the beam had to be 24
inches in length with a span of 21 inches. The beam was required to hold the weight of 425 pounds on the
x-axis and 200 pounds on the y-axis, although the y-axis was not tested. To have passed the beam testing,
the beam was not allowed to break and the deflection had to be greater than .06 inches and less than 2.5
inches. The beam had to weigh less than 270 grams and cost less than $11.50. This project also confined
us to only using basswood lumber from the 1201 lumber-yard and tools from the tool-box provided in
class. The toolbox contained materials like: clamps, hobby knife, and Elmers wood glue. Finally,
assumptions of the modulus of elasticity of basswood, 14.6 x 10^6 psi, and the density of basswood, 28
lbs./ft^3, had to be made. Taking all of these stipulations into account, the constructed beam weighed
145lbs. The I-beam was tested and failed at around 350lbs. causing it not to reach the 425lb. mark that the
group was required to reach. The group met the efficiency ratio of 1.3 by .5 points with a 1.8. Due to the
teams beam failing, a grade of 20% was received for the test data sheet. For future reference, these
following recommendations should be taken into account. If an I-Beam is being designed, a thick web
should be used because it gives the beam a greater stability. When constructing the beam, be sure that the
web and flanges are properly aligned when glued. This will keep the beam from twisting from the
pressure of the load. These recommendations have been provided due to the lessons learned in the failed
test. When the construction of the beam is incorrect, the calculations do not guarantee the correct results.
The calculations for the design showed that the beam could support the load within the deflection
allowed, but as the results show, it failed on test day. Another lesson learned was that when looking at
initial designs, checking to see if it can be optimized can show where the design needs to be improved,
and insure that the design selected will yield the best results.

Reference

1201 Faculty, "Beam Theory," (Pre-class readings, ENGR 1201 Moodle Site, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC, accessed November 22 2015).

Appendix

X-Axis

1.753

.375

1.253

3
3
bh
bh
I x =Outside
2 Inside
=
12
12

I x =.447 4.122 4

.325 4
3

21

) =.173
( 425 Ib ) (
( 48 ) (1460000 psi ) ( .325 4 )

P L3
x=
=
48 EI
Y-Axis

I y =Web

1.25

.253

.25

13

b h3
b h3
+2 Flange
=
12
12

I y =.002+ .042=.044 4

21

) =.610
( 200 Ib ) (
( 48 )( 1460000 psi ) ( .044 4 )

P L3
y=
=
48 EI
Safety factor of 35% of the original x load weight
21 3

) =.234
( 573.75 Ib ) (
( 48 ) ( 1460000 psi ) ( .325 4 )

3
PL
x=
=
48 EI
Volume
1

.25
.25

24
(1.25 ( ) ) ( )
2

V =( Flange 2 ( bh )+Web ( bh ) ) ( beam length )=

V =19.5 3
Mass
M =( Volume ) ( Converted Density ) + ( of gluejoints ) ( 5 )=( 19.5 3 )
M =153.323 g

( 7.350 g )+10 g
3

Percent Difference =

.173
Actual.173
100
ActualTheoretical
100 =
Theoretical

Figure 1.1- Visio Drawn I-beam

Figure 1.3 Example of the Excel Beam Calculator

Figure 1.4 Construction of I-beam

Figure 1.2 Failed I-beam