XLIX

Engineering Design Firm

9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223

Transmittal
Date:
Section:
To:
From:
Subject:

We are
submitting:

Date

1201 006
Dan Latta
Hollyann Walker
Amanda Elsayed, Jerry Autry, Brandon Krahn, Shane OBrien
Beam Project Technical Report

Memorandum

Design Package

Problem Set

Report - Draft
Report - Final

Test Data Sheet

Other:

Extra Credit

Description
Beam Project Technical Report

These are transmitted as checked below:

Individual Assignment
For grading
For review/comment
Other:

Team Assignment -- Team No.1

1
Beam Project Technical Report
Prepared for:
XLIX Engineering Design Firm
9201 University City Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28223
Introduction to Engineering Practice and Principles I
ENGR 1201-006
Prepared by: Team 1
Jerry Autry, Brandon Krahn, Amanda Elsayed, Shane OBrien

Date Submitted:
11/24/2015

I have neither given nor received any unauthorized help on this assignment, nor witnessed any
violation of the UNC Charlotte Code of Academic Integrity.

November 24, 2015

November 24, 2015

November 24, 2015

November 24, 2015

2
Table of Contents
Abstract... 3
Introduction..... 3
Background Information..... 3
Figure 1: Beam Support Styles...4
Figure 1: Typical Beam Shapes..4
Figure 3: Deflection of a beam...5
Methods and Procedure.. 5
Figure 4: Structural Beam Design Requirements.......................................................6
Figure 5: Amandas Beam Design.....7
Figure 6: Brandons Beam Design.....7
Figure 7: Shanes Beam Design.....8
Figure 8: Treys Beam Design.......8
Figure 9: Example Beam Calculator..9
Table 1: Beam Design Decision Matrix.....9
Figure 10: Team 1s Beam11
Observations and Results.......12
Table 2: Standards for Each Team....12
Table 3: Beam Requirements....12
Table 4: Calculated Specifications of the Beam...12
Figure 11: Beam for Team 1.13
Figure 12: Beam under Load.14
Figure 13: Test Data Sheet14
Table 5: Test Data for Beam by Team 1...15
Table 6: Calculated Vs Experimental Results...15
Table 7: Percent Difference...15
Discussion..16
Conclusion and Recommendations....17
References..18

3
Abstract
For the Beam Design Project, Team 1 was assigned with designing and building a beam within
certain constraints and resources. This project was assigned to introduce 1201 students to
working within a team to design and build a product, and also be able to analyze the results.
Resources to build the beam were limited to only basswood obtained from 1201 lumber yard,
clamps, hobby knife, tools, and Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue from the Discovery Box. Each
team member did intensive research about simply, supported beams before designing individual
beams. After each member designed three different beams and selected the best one out of the
three, the team as a whole selected the best beam to be constructed and tested. After the beam was
build, it was brought to class to be tested in which the load indicated by the problem statement
was applied. The beam supported the load that was given and the deflection was within the
constraints. Upon testing, Team 1 analyzed the beam results and discussed what these successful
results meant. It is recommended to use a thick wed and flanges when constructing an I-Beam, as
presented with the results of Team 1s beam. It was also recommended to add glue and stabilizers
with caution as it could lead to an increase in mass, thus skewing the efficiency ratio. After full
completion of this project, Team 1 further realized the effectiveness of a well-organized team and
that good engineering judgement is needed in the design process, as not everything that passes on
paper will succeed under real circumstances.
Introduction
A unique beam, number 150803, was constructed of basswood obtained from 1201 lumber yard.
This beam was required to support a load of 350lb f in a center-loaded, simply-supported
configuration (x-axis). The y-axis load of this beam was also required to support 200 lb f. The
length of this beam was required to be 24 in., while the length span was 21in. The beam was
expected to carry the required load within a minimum deflection of 0.05 in. and maximum of
0.235 in. when tested. In order for the beam to be tested, the composite cross-section was
required to be symmetrical about the centroid axis and be designed in a standard I-beam, H-beam,
or a hollow box beam configuration. The cross-section dimensions of the beam were not to
exceed 2 x 2. The mass of the beam could not exceed the maximum mass requirement of 240 g.
Moreover, the cost to construct the beam could not exceed $10.50, which included the cost of the
wood and $0.50 per glue joint. Teams were also required to provide a Bill of Materials for the
cost of the final design. All wood used to construct this unique beam, was obtained from the 1201
Lumber Yard, which had limited sizes and quantities. Construction of the beam was completed
using the given supplies and tools, which included: clamps, hobby knife, tools, and Elmers
Carpenters Wood Glue from the Discovery Box. Calculations were completed for the basswood
beam assuming values for physical material properties which included the modulus of elasticity
(1.46 x 106 psi) and density (28lbm/ft3).
Background Information
Beams are typically horizontal structures, which are used to hold and support vertical loads.
However, they can be vertical members of a structure that withstand horizontal loads such as a
wall withstanding the force of wind. Beams have different names depending on where they are
being used. Roof, building, and bridge construction have their own respective names for beams,
depending on where and how they are placed and the loads which act upon them. The load is a
force which is placed on a beam and can be different depending on how and where the load is
applied. Single point loads act at a specific spot on the beam and the force is concentrated at that
particular point. Distributed loads act along a span of the beam, and are either uniformly or

4
variably distributed. Static loads remain the same over time while a dynamic load changes as it
travels across the beam.
Beam theory is the prediction of the reaction a beam will have to a specific load and the different
beam configurations that have an effect on the beams reaction. These different styles of beam
configuration include simple, continuous, cantilever, end-supported cantilever, combination, and
fixed, however, only a simple supported beam was tested. This means that the beam is rested on
two points near the ends of the beam. An example of these beam styles can be seen in Figure 1
below.

Figure 2. Beam Support Styles (Beam Theory)

The reaction a beam has to a specific load is an attempt to maintain equilibrium and if a beam can
bend, without compromising the structural integrity of whatever the beam may be supporting, it
has maintained its equilibrium and is a solid beam. A beams reaction to a load is dependent on a
few factors, such as the shape and size of the beam, the material with which the beam was made,
the span length of the beam, and the type of supports of the beam.
Beams come in many cross- sectional shapes and sizes including solid box, I-beam, H-beam, and
hollow box beam, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 3. Typical Beam Shapes (Beam Theory)

Each beam shape has specific calculations which have to be made in order to find the moment of
inertia. The moment of inertia is a measure of the resistance to movement, bending or rotation, of
the beam itself caused by the load and is used to indicate how the cross sectional area of a beam
is distributed around a specified axis.
For a standard solid box beam, the moment of inertia is found with the equation:
is the base, and h is the height of the beam.

b h3
12

where b

The moment of inertia for a hollow box beam is found with the equation:

bo ho
12

bh
- i i
12

where bo is the base of the outer box, ho is the height of the outer box, bi is the base of the inner
box, and hi is the height of the inner box

bo ho3
12

The calculations for an I-beams moment of inertia is completed with the equation:
2(

bi hi3

12

where bo is the base of the entire beam, ho is the height of the entire beam, bi is the

base minus the width of the web (vertical section), and h i is the height minus 2x the width of the
flanges (horizontal sections).

b1 h 13
For an H-beam, the moment of inertia is found with the equation: 2(

12

b2 h23
12

where b1 is the base of the flange (horizontal section), h 1 is the height of the flange, b2 is the base
of the web (vertical section), and h2 is the height of the web.
3

Once the moment of inertia is found, it can be plugged into the equation:

PL
48 EI

where

is the deflection, L is the length of the beam, E is the modulus of elasticity which is the resistance
to bending of the specific material used (in this case, basswood), and I is the moment of inertia.
Figure 3 below shows the deflection of a beam, and aids in understanding where each
measurement originates.

Figure 4. Deflection of a beam (Beam Theory)

To find the cross-sectional area of an I-beam, the equation
A=(( B)( H ))(( BB w)( H w)) is used, where B is the base, H is the height, Bw is the base
of the web, and Hw is the height of the web.
Once the area is calculated, the volume is found with the equation: V =( A )(l) where A is the
area, and is the length of the beam. This area then has to be divided by 1728 in 3 in order to get the
area in ft3.
The mass of the beam can then be found with the equation
volume and D is the density (Beam Theory).

M =( V )( D) where V is the

Methods and Procedures

The engineering design process was used to determine the steps taken to complete the beam
design project. The process included the following steps: defining the problem, gather
information, generate multiple solutions, and analyzing and selecting the best solution. The
project description provided initial project definition, and was further defined by individual and
group project plans. Team 1 team was assigned specific x-and y-axis loads, weight restriction,
deflection, and cost limit. Reference Figure 4 for detailed information regarding design
requirements. Project plans were completed utilizing Microsoft Office Project software, and laid
out major performance requirements, milestones, and deliverables. Team members gathered
information by determining their best individual beam designs by comparing various basswood
dimensions that yielded the best results. The decision criteria that was given the most
consideration was x-axis deflection, weight, and cost. Previous Introduction to Engineering
Practices and Principles I (ENGR 1201) students provided valuable insight into designs for
consideration for successful testing (The Design Process).

Figure 4. Structural Beam Design Requirements

Utilizing individual beam calculators that were generated in Microsoft Excel, team members were
then able to generate multiple solutions. The following figures (5-8) are illustrations of
individual members designs:

Figure 5. Amandas Beam Design

Figure 6. Brandons Beam Design

Figure 7. Shanes Beam Design

Figure 8. Treys Beam Design

Once team members presented their best performing individual designs, these designs were then
considered during a group brainstorming session to decide on a final design. The design that was
ultimately decided upon was a conglomeration of strong individual components such as thick
flanges and web. These dimensions were then input into an excel calculator, such as the one in
Figure 9, to determine the important decision points, consisting of: weight, x-axis deflection, and
cost. A decision matrix was also used to compare and contrast individual designs and then
utilized again in the final design procedure. Reference Table 1 for a detailed analysis of
individual beam designs.

Figure 9. Example Beam Calculator

Table 1. Beam Design Decision Matrix
Relativ
e
Weight
s

60%
30%
30%
100%

Evaluatio
n Criteria

X-Axis
Deflectio
n
Efficiency
Ratio
Cost
Total

Alternatives
Treys I Beam

Brandons I
Beam
Ratin
Scor
g
e

Ratin
g

Scor
e

1.5

0.6

2
5.1

1.2

3.3

Amandas I
Beam
Scor
Ratin e
g
4
2.4

1.5

0.6

2
4.5

Shanes I
Beam
Ratin
Scor
g
e
4

2.4

1.5

1.5

0.6

0.6
4.5

The following calculations were utilized in the mathematical analysis of the beam dimensions
that were ultimately decided upon. Although all beams passed the requirements, Shanes beam
utilized the sturdiest materials, and was chosen to be built by team 1 based on this. These
calculations are representative of the dimensions of his beam.
Cross Sectional area (A):

A= ( ( B )( H ) )((BT w )( H w ))
A= ( ( 1. ) ( 1.875. ) )((1.0.3125.)(1.25.))
A=1.016 2
Volume (V):

V =( A )(l)

V =(1.016 2)( 24.)

10
3

V =24.375

For volume in (ft3)

V=

( A)(l)
1728 3

V=

(1.016 )(24.)
1728 3

V =0.014 ft 3
Mass (m):
For mass in (lbm):

m=(V )( D)

m=(0.014 ft 3 ) 28

lbm
ft 3

m=0.395 lb m
For mass in (g)

m=(V )( D)( 453.592 g)

m=( 0.014 ft 3 ) 28

lbm
ft 3

(453.592 g)

m=179.153 g
Moment of inertia about x-axis (Ix)
3

( )(
)
(1.)(1.875.)
) ( 1.25. )
I =(
)( ( 1.0.3125.
)
12
12
3
( BT w )( H w )
BH
I x=

12
12
3

I x =0.437 4
Moment of inertia about y-axis (Iy)

)(

(T f ) ( B )
( H w ) ( T w)
I y =2
+
12
12

)(

(0.3125.) ( 1. )
( 1.25. ) ( 0.3125. )
I y =2
+
12
12

11
4

I y =0.055

Deflection about x-axis (x)

P x L3
x=
48 E I x
21.

3
(350 lb f )
x =
x =0.106
Deflection about y-axis (y)
3

P L
y= y
48 E I y
21.

3
(200 lb f )
y =
y =0.478
Cost ($)

Cost of two flanges plus one web plustwo joints=Total cost

2 (2.25 )+ 2.82+ 2 ( 0.50 )=8.32
The factors that were given the most consideration in terms of final design were the best ratio
between the least amount of x-axis deflection, weight, and cost. This design was decided upon in
class during a beam project work session. The assembly of the components began six days prior
to the day of testing team designs. C-clamps secured the bottom flange to the web after the glue
had been applied and allowed to cure. During this time, additional glue was applied and evenly
spread to create a uniformed joint. 24 hours after the bottom flange dried, the top flange was then
also glued to the web and secured with c-clamps for curing time. Glue was again spread evenly
across the joint for uniformity. As depicted in Figure 10, four inserts were added to the ends of the
beam outside of the 21 span length. The intention behind the addition of the inserts was to
provide torsional stability during testing.

12

Figure 10. Team 1s Beam

Observations and Results

Every team in 1201 was assigned with designing and building a beam that would pass specific
standards that were unique to each team. However, there were standards set that were the same
for each individual team regarding beam design. These are found in Table 2, which follows.
Table 2. Standards for Each Team

Standard Criteria for Beam Design

Material
Basswood
Density (lbm/ft3)
28
Modules of Elasticity (psi)
1460000
For the beam that Team 1 was to design, they were assigned the requirements of beam number
150803. These requirements are listed in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Beam Requirements

Beam Number: 150803

(Px) X-Axis Load (lb)
(Py) Y-Axis Load (lb)
(m) Beam Weight Restriction (g.)
(x) X-Axis Deflection (min) (in)
(x) X-Axis Deflection (max) (in)
Cost Limit ($)
(L) Span Length (in)
(l) Beam Length (in)

350
200
240
0.05
0.235
10.50
21
24

13
These requirements were used to design and build the beam that Team 1 used. The dimensions,
along with the calculated specifications of this beam are included in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Calculated Specifications of the Beam

Beam Design for Team 1

Input
(B) Flange Width: Dimension Parallel
to X-axis(in.)
(Tf) Flange Thickness (in.)
(H) Height: Dimension Perpendicular
to X-axis (in.)
(Hw) Web Height (in.)
(Tw) Web Thickness (in.)
(A)
Cross Sectional Area (in2)
(V) Volume (in3)
(V) Volume (ft3)
(m) Mass (lbm)
(m) Mass (g)
(Ix) Moment of Inertia about x-axis
(in4)
(Iy) Moment of Inertia about y-axis
(in4)
(x) Deflection about x-axis (in)
(y) Deflection about y-axis (in)
Cost ($)

Value
1
0.3125
1.875
1.25
0.3125
1.016
24.375
0.014
0.395
179.153
0.437
0.055
0.106
0.478
8.32

A cross-sectional view of the beam used by Team 1 can be seen in Figure 11 below.

14

Figure 11. Beam for Team 1

After testing the beam, the following results were gathered, which are shown in Table 5 below.
Following is also a picture of the beam under a 350 lbf load (Figure 12), and a picture of the Test
Data Sheet used to record the results (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Beam under Load

15

Figure 13. Test Data Sheet

Table 5. Test Data for Beam by Team 1

Test Data for Beam Designed by Team 1

Actual Mass Before Glue and
175
Supports (g)
Actual Mass After Glue and
185
Supports (g)
Actual X-axis Deflection (in)
0.147
Upon testing, it was found that the results were not exactly as predicted by Team 1s calculations.
Table 6 below compares differences in values.
Table 6. Calculated Vs Experimental Results

Differences Between Experimental and Calculated Results

Mass of Beam (g)
Calculated mass
Tested
Tested
mass
mass after
before glue
glue and

16

179.153
Calculated Deflection
0.106

Deflection along x-axis

(in)

and
supports
supports
175
185
Tested Deflection
0.147

After seeing that Team 1s beam passed, the grade received was based upon
the efficiency ratio of their beam. This can be found by the following
equation.

Efficiency Ratio=

Design Load ( lb f ) / Actual Mass ( g )

Design Load(lb f )/ Allowable Mass(g)

The efficiency ratio for Team 1 came out to be 1.297, which resulted in a
grade of 90.
After completing a project, it is helpful to know how far off your results are
from what you calculated them to be. To find this, the percent difference
equation is used, which is demonstrated below.

| ActualTheoretical|

Difference=

Theoretical

x 100

The percent difference from the data gained through this experiment is found in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Percent Difference

Percent Difference between Calculated and Tested Data

Criteria
Percent Difference
Mass of Beam
2.31 %
Deflection along x-axis
27.89 %
The calculations used to find the data above are as follows:

|175179.153|

Difference ( mass ) =

179.153

x 100 =2.31

|0.1470.106|

Difference ( deflection ) =

0.106

x 100 =27.89

The data for the percent difference in the table above comes from Table 6. Due to there being two
different values for the actual mass of the beam, the mass before gluing was used to find percent
error since the calculated mass of beam includes only the wood.
Discussion

17

After acquiring the needed sections of wood to construct the beam designed by Team 1, the wood
pieces were weighed to find the mass of the raw wood. This mass came out to be 175 grams,
about four grams less than the calculated mass. After constructing the beam by gluing the sections
together in an I beam style, and the addition of stabilizers at both ends of the beam, the total
mass came out to be 185 grams. Upon testing the beam by applying 350 pounds of force in a
center loaded, simply supported style, the beam deflected 0.147 inches, which was within the
constraints of the deflection being greater than 0.05 inches and less than 0.235 inches. Although
the beam passed the test, the results achieved are not exactly what was predicted by Team 1s
calculations. The raw weight of the basswood used to construct the beam measure about four
grams less than what was calculated by Team 1. This shows that the density of the wood is not as
high as assumed, and therefore led to the conclusion that the wood used was not as strong as
indicated by the calculations. Upon testing, this assumption was further confirmed by the beam
deflecting more than predicted. However, the beam still passed well within constraints due to
Team 1 designing it to be able to pass with a safety factor of two. Because the beam was built
following the assumptions that the density was 28 lbm/ft3 and that the modules of elasticity was
1.46 x 106 psi, it could have failed testing if the safety factor had not been included in the original
design.
For the beam built by Team 1, the I beam style was used. This is done by gluing three sections
of wood into an I shape, as shown in Figure 6 above. Other options for the construction of the
beam was the H beam style and the hollow box beam style. The I was chosen due to costing
less and weighing less than a hollow box beam, while also having about the same defection
characteristics. The H beam was never considered due to being much weaker than the other two
options. Other options included choosing which beam to design out of the ones proposed by each
member of Team 1. The beam that was chosen was not completely based off of the decision
matrix, but instead off of good engineering judgement. Knowing that a beam built with a narrow
web would most likely fail under real testing conditions (even though it passes on paper), the
beam chosen by Team 1 was the one with the thickest web and flanges. This greatly increased
stability, and is what most likely allowed Team 1 to be successful in the beam testing. Because of
the results achieved, it is shown that the beam built by Team 1 easily passed the requirements set
upon its design. This demonstrates that Team 1 understands the process behind designing and
producing a simple beam to meet specific weight and deflection requirements. Since the beam
passed testing, it automatically received a grade of 80, but due to its efficiency ratio, 10 bonus
points was achieved. Team 1 realized that if the beam weighed 2 grams less, the beam would have
passed with a score of 100 due to a better efficiency ratio. For future classes, it is recommended
that an I beam is used. This is because they (I beam) can be designed to have nearly the same
deflection as a sturdier box beam but as a much lower weight and cost, which contributes to a
greater efficiency ratio. However, in designing an I beam, it is highly recommended that the
thickest flanges and web is used for max stability, as was demonstrated in Team 1s beam.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Team 1 was given the task of analyzing and designing a beam to support a load with a minimum
and maximum amount of deflection. Task definition to completion of assembly took two weeks
time to complete, with the initial stages of the project demanding the most thought and time.
Starting with a project plan, each member was required to develop individual designs, which then
were taken into consideration for final team design. Team 1 decided upon an I beam design,
which was then assembled six days prior to testing. During testing, the beam handled the
specified load well within the maximum allowable deflection. The beam was successful for a few
reasons, as a significant amount of time was spent in analyzing various I beam configurations

18
until a quality balance was found between the determining factors. The benefit of the addition of
torsional end supports, with regards to aiding in the beams passing success or if they strictly just
added weight, remains unknown. Speculation has been drawn that they merely added weight to
the beam, and that the beam could have handled the center loaded weight regardless. However,
there is no mathematical or scientific evidence in support of either side. The recommendations
for future applications of beam design is to utilize the I-beam design with significant work to be
placed in further engineering analysis. It is also recommended to use the strongest (thickest)
materials possible that allows the cost to be within the constraints.

19
References
1201 Faculty, "Beam Theory" (Pre-class readings, ENGR 1201 Moodle Site, UNC Charlotte,
Charlotte, NC, accessed November 22, 2015).
1201 Faculty, The Design Process (Pre-class readings, ENGR 1201 Moodle Site, UNC
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, accessed November 23, 2015).