ENES 220: Mechanics II

Beam Design Project

Final Design Report

Trevor Hodge – Griffin Holt – Madeleine Hutchins

Lauren Skramko – Dillon Phamdo

Fall 2019
Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2
Task Designation 3
Introduction 4
Material Property Values 5
Technical Drawings of Final Design 6
Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams 7
Cross Section Optimization 9
Failure Load Calculations 10
Internal Shear and Moment 10
Moment of Inertia 12
Flexure 12
Wood Sheer 12
Glue Shear 12
Summary 12
Maximum Beam Deflection Calculations 13
Strength to Weight Ratio Calculations 13
Test Results 14

Comparison of the Predictions 17

Discussion of Results 17

Conclusion 18

Appendix 19

2
Task Designation
Design Task Primary Responsible Reviewer

Maddie Hutchins Lauren Skramko

Introduction

Griffin Holt Dillon Phamdo

Material Property Values

Griffin Holt Maddie Hutchins

Technical Drawings of Final
Design

Griffin Holt Dillon Phamdo

Shear Force and Bending
Moment Diagrams

Dillon Phamdo Maddie Hutchins

Cross Section Optimization

Failure Calculations Dillon Phamdo Maddie Hutchins

Maddie Hutchins Dillon Phamdo

Maximum Beam Deflection
Calculations

Dillon Phamdo Maddie Hutchins

Strength to Weight Ratio
Calculations

Maddie Hutchins, Dillon

Beam Construction Phamdo, Lauren Skramko,
Trevor Hodge

Lauren Skramko Griffin Holt

Test Results

Dillon Phamdo Maddie Hutchins, Lauren

Comparison of the Skramko
Predictions

Trevor Hodge, Lauren Griffin Holt

Discussion of Results Skramko

Conclusion Trevor Hodge Lauren Skramko

3
Introduction

For the Beam Design Project, we were instructed to design and

build a wooden beam that could withstand an applied load in the range
500 lb ≤ P ≤ 2500 lb. In analyzing numerous cross-sections, we wanted
a design that would have the highest strength-to-weight ratio. We
had the option to build our beam from red oak, pine or a combination
of both. The beam parts were to be fastened together with Gorilla
wood glue. In addition to our materials, there are multiple
constraints we had to meet to fulfill the requirements for the
project. The beam must have a total length of 22 to 24 inches in order
to properly fit in the loading fixture. The height/width ratio of the
beam must be ≤ 2/1 to avoid excessive twisting during loading. The
width of the beam must be ≤ 2 inches, so, therefore, the height must
be ≤ 4 inches. Our components should have thicknesses following
increments of 1/16th of an inch. Each thickness needs to be in the
range 3/16 ≤ t ≤ 3/4. Finally, the width/thickness of the flanges and
height/thickness ratio of the web should be ≤ 8/1 to prevent local
instability. Regarding failure loads, theoretical failure loads in the other modes of
failure need to be within 20% of the failure load.
After analyzing the tensile and shear strengths of both types of wood, we chose to use oak
wood because of its greater strength. We made our beam have a total length of 23 inches because
it is the average of the required range. We decided that a classic symmetrical I-beam would be the
best design to mitigate bending and shear stress. To determine the ideal cross-section of our beam,
our team created a C++ program to calculate the maximum P each cross-section could hold. As
seen in our failure loads calculations section, we found formulas for the moment of inertia,
flexural stress, wood shear stress, and glue shear stress all in terms of P. Using the average
strength values given, we used our program to find the different thicknesses that would give us
the best output of P. Using our program, we were able to find the cross-section we determined
was best considering the strength-to-weight ratio and the requirements of the project.

4
Material Property Values

For this project, there were several material properties. First, we looked at Appendix A
of the project guidelines paper, which specifies the tensile and shear strength of oak and pine,
and the glue shear strength on oak and pine. When comparing these numbers for our material
selection, we decided to use the average values, since we felt it would give us calculated results
closest to experimental results.

Appendix A from the Project Guidelines

Then, we opted to use oak wood for the construction of our I-beam because it had a
larger tensile strength, shear strength, and glue shear strength compared to pine, and since we
are trying to build a large load-supporting I-beam, this made logical sense for us. While pine

5
wood is lighter, we found the density of pine to be 0.0208 lb/in 3 and the density of oak to be
0.0228 lb/in3. Since this difference is pretty small, we opted to use oak. 1
Tensile Strength Shear Strength Shear Strength (glue) Density Young’s Modulus

17,873 psi 2,873 psi 1,391 psi 0.0228 lb/in3 1.822*106 psi
Technical Drawings of Final Design

1 MatWeb was used to find values for density and Young’s modulus. Density values are for typical moisture levels.
The type of oak used is North American Northern Red Oak. The type of pine used is Northern White Pine.

6
7
 Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams

2/5P
Shear
(lbs)

0 0

Vmax=-
-3/5P (3/5)P

12P- Mmax=(24/5)
(2/5P)x
(3/5P)x
P
Moment (in-
lbs)

0 0

8
 1,188.8
Shear (lbs)

0 0

Vmax=1,783.1
-1,783.1 lbs

35,662.8- Mmax=14,265.1 in-

1,188.8x
1,783.1x
lbs
Moment (in-
lbs)

0 0

9
Cross Section Optimization
In order to optimize our cross section, our team assumed we would utilize a simple 3
piece I-beam that would be symmetrical in both the x and y neutral axis. After utilizing the
given dimensions of the beam, we solved for maximum shear force (Vmax) and maximum
bending moment (Mmax) in terms of P. Then, our team utilized 4 different dimensions of this
type of I-beam. This would be represented as the width of the entire cross-section (w), the
height of the entire cross-section (h), the width of the flange (wf), and the width of the web
(ww). From these 4 dimensions, we created equations with these as the variables, such as Q, I,
and Q of the joint (Qjt). After this, we plugged in Q, I and Qjt along with Vmax and Mmax into
our tensile strength, shear strength, and shear strength of glue equations. From here, we solve
for P for all 3 equations. For tensile strength, our σ was taken from the average tensile strength
of oak. Our τ was taken from the average shear strength of oak, and our τ joint was taken from
the average shear strength of gorilla on oak.

Vmax (0.6)*P
Mmax (4.8)*P
Ina (1/12)*w*h^3 - (1/12)*(w-ww)*(h-wf)^3
Q ((w*wf)*(h/2-wf/2)) + ((ww*(h/2-wf))*((h/2)-wf)/2)
Qjt (w*wf)*((h/2)-(wf/2))
P for sigma 2*sigma*Ina/(4.8*h)
P for tau tau*I*ww/(.6*Q)
P for taujt taujt *I*ww/(.6*Qjt)

From these equations, our team created a C++ program that would use a brute force
method to solve for P. Utilizing 4 for loops, our program would loop through all different
dimensions of a 3 piece symmetrical I-beam. Then, the program would find the maximum P
and minimum P value and compare the values. If the percent difference was less than 20%, the
height / width was less than 2, the P values were greater than 0, and the maximum P was less
than 3000 lbs, then the program would output that beam. With these parameters for our
beam, we obtained 2 different beams that would fulfill the requirements.

10
Failure Load Calculations

w=1.3125in
h=2.5625in
t w =0.375 in
t f =0.1875in
L=20in

Internal Shear and Moment

Σ M A =0=20 B y −12 P
3
B y= P
5
3 2
Σ F y =0= A y + B y −P= A y + P−P= A y − P
5 5
2
A y= P
5

11
0 ≤ x ≤ 12

Σ F y =0= A y −v
2
v= A y = P
5
Σ M =0=M −x A y
2 2 24
M =x A y =x ( P) M max =12( P)= P
5 5 5

12 ≤ x ≤20

Σ F y =0= A y −P−v
2 −3
v= A y −P= P−P= P
5 5
Σ M =0=M −x A y +(x−12)P=M −x A y + xP−12 P=M + x(P− A y )−12 P
2 3 3 24
M =12 P−x (P− A y )=12 P−x( P− P)=12 P−x ( P) M max =12 P−12( P)= P
5 5 5 5

3
|v max|= 5 P

12
 24
M max = P
5

13
Moment of Inertia

1 1
I= w h3 − (w−t w ) ¿
12 12
1 1
I = (1.3125) 2.56253− (1.3125−0.375) ¿
12 12
I =1.023in 4

Flexure

σ allow =17,873psi
24 h 24 2.5625
P( ) P( )
My 5 2 5 2 P=2,971.9lbs
σ= = = =17,873
I I 1.023

Wood Shear

τ allow, wood =2,873psi

h h
t w∗( −t f )∗ −t f
h t 2 2
Q=Σ A y=w∗t f ∗( − f )+
2 2 2
2.5625
−0.1875
2.5625 0.1875 2.5625 2 i
Q=1.3125 (0.1875)( − )+0.375( −0.1875) =0.517
2 2 2 2
n3
3
P(0.600)
VQ 5 P=3,554.9lbs
τ= = =2,873
I t w 1.023(0.517)

Glue Shear

τ allow, glue=1,391psi
h tf 2.5625 0.1875
Q=Σ A y=w∗t f ∗( − )=1.3125(0.1875)( − )=0.292in3
2 2 2 2
3
P(0.292)
VQ 5 P=3,042.2lbs
τ= = =1,391
I t w 1.023(0.292)

14
Summary

Pmax =2,971.9lbs with flexure failure at the loading point (x = 12in)

3
|v max|= 5 P=1,783.1lbs
24
M max = P=14,265.1in-lbs
5

15
Maximum Beam Deflection Calculations

a=12in
b=8in
L=20in
P=2,971.9lbs
E=1.822∗1 06psi
I =1.023in4

−Pba 2 2 2
v max= ( L −b −a ) (from Appendix D)
6 EIL
−2,971.9(8) 12
v max= 6
(202−8 2−122)
6(1.822∗1 0 ) 1.023(20)
v max=−0.2450in
v max occurs at the loading point (x = 12in)

Strength to Weight Ratio Calculations

w=1.3125in
h=2.5625in
t w =0.375 in
t f =0.1875in
L=20in
ρ=0.0228lb/in3
Pmax =2,971.9lbs

A=2(w∗t f )+(h∗t w )=2(1.3125∗0.1875)+(2.5625∗0.375)=1.453in2

V = A∗L=1.453(20)=29.06in3
W =ρ∗V =0.0228(29.06)=0.6626lbs
P 2,971.9
Strength-weight-ratio ¿ max = =4485.0
W 0.6626

16
Test Results

17
 Our final beam for testing weighed 12.4 oz. and failed both due to a crack in the flange
as well as twisting in the beam at 1260lbs. The failure occurred at 20inches, one of its support
points. Using the failure load and the weight we are able to calculate our real strength to
weight ratio of 1625.8.

18
19
Comparison of the Predictions

Calculated Experimental

Failure Load 2,971.9 lbs 1,260 lbs

Failure Type Flexure Crack in flange, Twisting

Failure Location Loading point (x = 12in) Support point (x = 20in)

Strength-weight ratio 4485.0 1625.8

Discussion of Results
Our experimental failure load was 1260 lbs and only 57.6% of our calculated load. The
experimental failure type also varied from the predicted failure mode. Since our failure load
was much lower than what we had calculated, our strength to weight ratio was also calculated
to be higher than the real strength to weight ratio. We had originally calculated a strength to
weight ratio of 4485.0, but the actual tested value came out to be 1635.8. The failure location
was essentially the side of the beam closest to the vertical loading point. A crack in the bottom
flange propagated half the length of the beam, and the beam began to twist while approaching
the maximum load. The twisting was most severe at the support point (x = 20in), and the flange
crack started from this point as well. These failure types are impossible to predict given our
resources, and can be attributed to irregularities in the material such as bowing in the web,
uneven glued surfaces on each flange, and anomalies in the grain patterns. When constructing
the beam, we misplaced the bottom shims. Instead of being twenty inches apart, we glued
them at either end of the beam (22in apart). When testing, the shims barely reached the
support points, but we had to flip the beam to be tested without shims to ensure stability.
Because the roller supports were directly contacting the beam, stresses were concentrated at
the loading points and most likely lowered the maximum load of the beam. The crack in the
bottom flange probably developed due to the concentrated stresses at the support point. If we
correctly placed the shims, this crack may have formed at a higher load or not at all.

20
Conclusion
Overall, the beam achieved a significantly lower failure load than what we calculated,
but it did meet the target load of 500 lbs. The main weakness of our beam was the incorrect
placement of the shims, this was a simple overlooked design constraint which may have
significantly strengthened the beam. Early in the design process, we decided on creating a
three-piece I-beam due to ease of construction. To maximize the strength-to-weight ratio, we
could have made another optimization program for a 5-piece I-beam. There may have been a
stronger 5-piece design to compete with the design we agreed on. We could have lowered the
height/width ratio of the beam to reduce the probability of twisting. The ratio we used for this
constraint was 1.952, which is barely below the constraint of 2. Using a bigger tolerance in this
ratio would account for small irregularities in the material like web bowing which may increase
the probability of twisting.

21
Appendix
C++ Program
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;

int main(){
float Psig, Ptau, Ptaujt;
float w;
float h;
float wf;
float ww;

for(float w = .25; w < 2; w = w + .0625) {

for(float h = .5; h < 4; h = h + .0625) {
for(float wf = .1875; wf < .75; wf = wf + .0625){
for(float ww=.1875; ww< .75; ww = ww+.0625){

float Ina = (.0833333333)*w*pow(h,3) - (.0833333333)*(w-ww)*pow((h-

2*wf),3);
float Q = ((w*wf)*(h/2-wf/2)) + ((ww*(h/2-wf))*((h/2)-wf)/2);
float Qjt = (w*wf)*((h/2)-(wf/2));

float sigma = 17873;

float tau = 2873;
float taujt = 1391;
Psig = 2*sigma*Ina/(4.8*h);
Ptau = tau*Ina*ww/(.6*Q);
Ptaujt = taujt *Ina*ww/(.6*Qjt);

float max = Psig,min = Psig;

if(Psig > Ptau && Psig > Ptaujt){
max = Psig;
}
else if(Ptau > Psig && Ptau > Ptaujt){
max = Ptau;
}
else{
max = Ptaujt;

22
 }
if(Psig < Ptau && Psig < Ptaujt){
min = Psig;
}
else if(Ptau < Psig && Ptau < Ptaujt){
min = Ptau;
}
else{
min = Ptaujt;
}
float pdiff = (max-min)/min;
if(pdiff <= .2 && (h/w)<=2 && min < 3000 && Ptau > 0 && Ptaujt > 0){
cout <<"w = " << w << endl;
cout << "h = " << h << endl;
cout << "wf = " << wf << endl;
cout << "ww = " << ww << endl;
cout << "Psig = " << Psig << endl;
cout << "Ptau = " << Ptau << endl;
cout << "Ptaujt = " << Ptaujt << endl;
cout << "Percent diff = " << pdiff << endl << endl;
}
}
}
}
}
return(0);
}

23