Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Transmittal
Date:
Section:
To:
From:
Subject:
1201 004
Bill Lindsey
Alexis Carswell
We are
submitting:
Date
Memorandum
Design Package
Problem Set
Report - Draft
Report - Final
Extra Credit
Description
Beam Technical Report- Draft
Beam Technical Report- Final
Click here to enter text.
For grading
For review/comment
Other: Enter
Description
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
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.
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
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 (
elasticity ( lb f / .
P L3
48 EI
(2)
bo h o 3 b n h n 3
12
12
2015).
2b 1 h13 b2 h23
I x (H beam )=
12
12
To find the inertia of a I-Beam, Calculate the
the
b h
2b h
I x (I beam)= o o n n
12
12
The following results correlate to the finalized I-Beam structure, designed by Craig Berwick, and tested
and constructed by the entire team.
Given Values
max = 0.250in
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:
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.
Percent Difference can not be calculated since the beam failed and we dont have a actual calculation but
.173
Actual .173
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.
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
( 7.350 g )+10 g
3
Percent Difference =
.173
Actual.173
100
ActualTheoretical
100 =
Theoretical