Tutorial 3 Team 5

Name: Student Number:

Christiaan Joubert 7248386

Jake Delaney 7622430

Matthew Cordell 7480556

Thomas Druhan 7326099

1
 Team assignment cover sheet

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

Title of Assignment: ENGG102: Project 1 Balsa Beam

Design and Test

Date and time due: 11:59pm 14/03/2022

Tutorial Number: 3

Team Letter: T3T5

Total number of pages: 26

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.

2
3
 ENGG102
Project 1
Balsa Beam Design and Test

4
 Contents

Page Number Title

6 Statement of Purpose

7 Results of Brainstorming

9 Beam Description

12 Results

14 Results Comparison

16 Reflection

18 Subject Mapping

20 Conclusion

21 Self Assessment

22 Bibliography

23 Appendix A

26 Appendix B

5
Statement of Purpose

In the case of balsa beam design and testing, the civil engineering behind this strives
to withstand the applied weights to provide a solution to beam design in real-world
applications.
This report aims to provide our team's rationale for electing our beam design. It also
demonstrates detailed sketches of our team's beam and compares the results of the
beam’s test with other teams’ beams to measure what is an efficient design that
minimises costs of materials.
The report acknowledges the importance of reflection that has been completed by
the whole team to assess methods of success and failure in the design and
construction phases. This section most importantly provides suggestions for
improvements on our design if it was to be completed again. In addition, it formally
breaks down the physics of what happened in the testing phase.
Lastly, this report draws upon the relevant learning outcomes for ENGG102 and
maps our team's understanding of the subject so far in accordance with these
outcomes before concluding.

6
Results of Brainstorming

Initial Sketches
These are the initial sketches formulated during the first meeting.

Concept 1: We selected the design of concept 1 as it seemed to provide the most

potential to bend within the desired range while remaining sustainable by not using
excessive materials.
Variations/Improvements: The part dimensions listed in the
design sketch were the final part list, however variations to the
materials used was discussed. Initially, the variation of
aligning rods side-by-side as well as stacking them was
considered, however, dismissed due to not improving the
vertical rigidity of the beam when compared to only stacking
the rods.

Next, the rod dimensions were discussed. Initially, the 5mmx5mm rods were going to
be used. The 6.5mmx6.5mm rods were chosen instead as we agreed that thicker
rods are better, and the number of rods can be reduced if too rigid.

Concept 2: We began experimenting with variations to the cross-section of our

beam, in this case, the use of an ‘I’ cross-section. This thought process intended to
maximise potential when it came to structural integrity, as well as achieving the
desired deflection. This concept provided several pros, including material efficiency,

7
and top/bottom integrity. As well as this, when performing the test, this beam would
have been effective in numerous orientations, increasing the possibility for success.
Problems/Variations: When discussing this concept for a beam, our team identified
several possible cons that may have had an impact on the overall result of our test.
Although a limited use of resources was positive, we concluded that this factor would
allow for too much deflection during the test. As well as this, if the test was
performed on this beam in a sideways orientation, there was a high chance of
deviating the beam permanently, which wouldn’t have provided us with the sufficient
results required, ultimately failing the experiment.

Concept 3: With all of our knowledge from previous beam concepts combined, as
well as the consideration of the pros and cons that they provided, our team went on
to design a beam that would utilise all factors that were required. This produced the
final ‘T’ beam that was tested against the weight. We attempted to construct a design
that not only accounted for the desired structural integrity but also minimised the cost
and use of material. We manipulated our selected materials in an attempt to
effectively create a beam design that would successfully deflect between 1-6.5mm,
ultimately coming up with one that would do so.

8
Beam Description

Our team's beam design incorporated the ‘T’ shape and was comprised of the
following materials:
-x1 Balsa sheet (450mm*75mm*1.5mm)
-x2 Balsa rods (900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm)
-x2 Balsa rods (900mm*3mm*3mm)

Our design aimed to incorporate the maximum strength in the vertical axis with
minimal materials to reduce costs. Both of the 900mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods were cut
in half to make four 450mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods that were glued along the centre of
the balsa sheet with a width of two rods. The same was done with the
900mm*3mm*3mm rods making four 450mm*3mm*3mm rods. The four
450mm*3mm*3mm rods were glued on top of the existing four
450mm*6.5mm*6.5mm rods with a width of two rods. Both these decisions gave our
team greater materials to work with at a lower cost per material. This helped to
achieve cost efficiency and waste minimisation.

Below are individualised photos of the balsa rods and sheet used:

Below are sketches of our team’s completed beam with dimensions:

9
10
Results

Team Type Deflection Met Criteria Volume mm3 Fabrication Effort Comments
(mm) Yes OR No eg High, Medium or Low eg Performance relative to type
Performance relative to volume
1= Performance relative to
straight fabrication effort
2= Apparent failure mode?
sideways What else did you observe?

1 -Box 1. 0.2 No 132,705 High High fabrication effort suggested

2. 0.5 it was built too strong to deflect
enough.

2 -Flat 1. >7 1. No 122,298 High High fabrication effort is directly

-Truss 2. 1 2. Yes related to sufficient deflection.

3 -Box 1. 0.2 1. No 270,000 Medium A high volume of material

2. 1.5 2. Yes suggested a high amount of
strength.

4 -I beam 1. 0.9 1. Yes 141,550 Medium High rigidity on one side but weak
2. 5.3 2. No on the other side causing high
deflection.

11
5 -T beam 1. 0.2 1. No 134,775 Medium Materials seemed to strengthen
2. 2.3 2. Yes over time leading to insufficient
deflection on the vertical plane.

6 -Square 1. 7.4 1. No 124,750 Medium Strong structural integrity given

2. 1.9 2. Yes the relatively low volume of beam.

7 -Plank 1.5 Yes 171,675 High Plank style beam allowed for a
relationship between high
fabrication quality and sufficient
deflection even though only one
side was tested.

12
Results Comparison

As can be identified from the results table listed above, our team had tested our
beam with the required weight on both the vertical and horizontal planes. In essence,
the vertical test did not meet the minimum deflection of 1mm and instead only
managed to deflect by 0.2mm. However, when tested horizontally, our team's beam
achieved sufficient deflection of 2.3mm then immediately snapped.
After the snap of the balsa wood beam, our team decided to investigate the stress
and strain that the beam had to withstand.
The below graph is a typical function of stress and strain for balsa wood:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Compressive-stress-strain-curves-for-balsa-wood-b-Tangential-
compression-with_fig6_50832451

As can be identified, the stress on the beam reached approximately 14∗1 04 Mpa
before snapping which placed significant pressure on the joints within the design.
Stress can be calculated as σ =F / A where F is force and A is the cross-sectional
area of the beam. This is the force per unit area that the beam can withstand.
The cross-sectional area can be calculated from the end view sketch of our beam:

13
Stress for our beam: σ =( 2.5 kg∗9.81 m/ s2 )/2.925∗1 0−4 m2
4
σ =8.38∗1 0 M P a
The results indicate that our beam had lower stress before snapping than what is
universally accepted for balsa wood. This suggests that the ‘T’ beam is only intended
to withstand significant deflection in the vertical plane. Stress is important because it
indicates how much load this beam can withstand.

In addition, Young's modulus is a property of any material that measures how easily
it can stretch and deform. This is important because our team ideally wanted to limit
Young’s modulus on our beam given it has to withstand a load. The Young's
modulus for low-density balsa wood is 1.41Gpa. The three-point test is often used to
measure the elastic modulus of brittle materials such as concrete, glass or balsa
wood.

In comparison to other teams who also completed the test, our beam lacked overall
rigidity as it was only strong vertically. Other teams’ designs such as a box or ‘I’
shape allowed for sufficient deflection from either side. Teams also used internal
bracing to limit Young’s modulus which ours lacked. However, the downside to this is
the increase in the cost of materials.

14
Reflection

Generally, glueing the rods to the middle of the beam as well as cutting them to
exact length took some time but paid off by reducing material costs. It was debatable
that too much glue was used leading to minimum deflection as can be seen in the
results table.
In the second attempt, our team would have chosen to abandon the ‘t’ beam
completely and construct an ‘I’ beam. This would avoid the excessive amount of glue
used in one area by distributing it more evenly.

It is important to analyse the effectiveness of our team’s beam with respect to other
teams who also completed the report with different beam designs. Team 1’s box
beam had extensive triangular bracing which secured the load when tested from
both axes. As stated in the comparison of the results, this is a design concept that
our team would incorporate if the project was to be completed again. Team 2 also
had triangular bracing on the internal structure of the beam but chose a flatter beam
design that resulted in higher deflection. Reflecting on our team’s design, the choice
to shorten the beam vertically would assist in meeting the deflection target,
something we lacked on the initial test. Team 4 used vertical bracing to strengthen
the beam when testing vertically only.

In the testing phase, it was found that tall narrow beams performed better than short
wide beams. Our team's beam had a tall aspect yet was quite wide. This confirmed
that the stacking of rods was effective not only for the cost to strength ratio but for
the overall stress and strain of the beam. Although our team did not include any
triangular bracing, this would have helped manage stress and strain. Teams that did
include this bracing performed relatively well.

As mentioned above, if we were to redesign this beam, our team would reduce the
width to achieve a tall and narrow beam that would work more effectively. This was,
Young’s modulus could be reduced even further.
Furthermore, given the strength provided by the glue that limited the deflection, if our
team were to repeat the design, we would choose an ‘I’ cross-sectional area shape.
This would allow for the beam to be stress-tested from both the vertical and
horizontal axes to provide better deflection. Our team would, however, maintain the
decision of getting more materials at a lower cost by cutting the rods in half. This
would just have to be applied to the ‘I’ shape instead.

Our team agreed that when a beam is placed under load, the behaviour is the action
that is observed as the beam responds to that load. The behaviour is primarily
observed by the visible external effects, notably deflection and cracking.
Essentially, deflection is the measure of the displacement of the element when
placed under load. This depends upon many factors including material type, span,

15
cross-sectional shape and supporting elements. These are all design elements
featured in the project.
Alternatively, cracking is the breakdown of the molecular structure of the material as
it experiences tension due to the applied load. It is initially observed as lines
appearing on the surface of the material. As the cracking develops, separation of the
material occurs. This was witnessed in our beam when tested vertically. Although
balsa wood is relatively brittle, the beam did not show signs of cracking for long
before snapping.

Additional knowledge from ENGG102 lectures can be applied to the situation such
as the internal forces which respond to the placement of an external load, namely
the shear force and bending moments. Calculating these would indicate how bad the
beam is failing.
Having gained some of this understanding after the construction phase, the cracking
and snapping could have been avoided by choosing a different cross-sectional area
shape.

When deciding to construct the ‘t’ shape beam, our group was not all present which
made it difficult to make the appropriate decision. However, it was clear that the
design had a high Young’s modulus meaning it was quite stiff in the horizontal
direction. Our team later learnt that this was not the best outcome when wanting to
achieve the deflection requirements. Elements of the construction process can be to
blame for this outcome.
Nonetheless, the decision-making process was well thought and construction was
quick once we had established the necessary materials that matched our sketches.

16
Subject Mapping

To this current date, within the subject of ENGG102, our team has explored
Newton's fundamental laws of motion and have applied them to objects, buildings
and vehicles. Our team has explored the reason for the analysis and design of
particular infrastructure to verify Newton’s fundamental laws of motion. Through
teamwork, we have learnt some of the professional responsibilities of engineers such
as adjusting to change, adapting to diversity and increasing the productivity of a
larger project.

Below are the learning outcomes that have governed our understanding of the
subject so far:

1. Apply fundamental physical principles to the design of simple structures.

Our team has applied weight, gravitational and normal forces to a balsa wood beam
to examine the real-world consequences. When designing the balsa wood beam, we
thought about the impacts of the weight force and designed the beam to withstand a
specific deflection.

2. Analyse forces acting on and within structural elements.

Our theoretical assessment of a ladder represented as a free-body diagram outlined
that forces must be added according to an x and y-axis to generate the resultant
forces. For example, this could include the force of friction in both the x and y axes. If
our team's balsa beam design was used in a real-world project such as a bridge,
there first must be an analysis of the potential forces to act on it.

3. Apply logical engineering design practices to multi-faceted problems involving

engineering mechanics.
The balsa wood beam is a direct application of engineering design practices to
several problems including structural integrity, weight, strain and stress. Professional
Engineers are responsible for bringing knowledge from multiple sources to develop
solutions to complex problems. This ensures that technical and non-technical
considerations are properly integrated, sustainability requirements are met and risk
is minimised.

4. Demonstrate self-directed learning related to solving problems in engineering.

The balsa wood beam has taught self-directed learning given each team chose a
beam shape and design then constructed it from limited parts. This had to satisfy the
problem of applying 2.5kg of weight in the testing phase.

5. Present calculations, designs, research and critical analysis in a professional

manner.

17
Calculations have been applied to free-body diagrams which are concepts that are
free from any attachments and instead are replaced by the forces that would act on
an object. These can include the positive reaction force or the negative weight force.
In addition, this report will aim to satisfy learning outcome five as it compiles our
design and research of the balsa wood beam to then make an analysis.

6. Work as a productive member of a team, recognising roles, responsibilities and

accountabilities of individuals in a team.
The balsa beam team project has given each of the members of our team the ability
to work collectively and productively on a single project. Each member has been
assigned relevant roles that correspond to report sections to complete thereby
reducing the total time it takes to complete the task. Our team's ground rules clearly
outline the accountability of a member if they were to fail to meet our seven laws.

7. Describe the role of engineers in society and their responsibilities in relation to the
design of engineered artefacts.
Our team has learnt that when engineers engineer solutions in the modern world,
they must ensure they are sustainable which minimises long-term expenses. This
means that solutions to real-world problems must validate a triple bottom line of
environmental, societal and economic concerns. All engineers registered under the
body of Engineering Australia are governed by a code of ethics that formally
highlights sustainable engineering. It outlines that engineers must engage
responsibly with the community and other stakeholders, manage the health, safety
and wellbeing of the broader community and environment whilst balancing the needs
of the present generation with generations to come.

18
Conclusion

The overall purpose of this experiment was to design a beam structure that when
placed over a 400mm wide gap and had a mass of 2.5kg placed on top of the centre
of the beam, would create a deflection in the beam of between 1 - 6.5mm. The beam
had to be constructed as either a T, I, or box shape from a cross-sectional
perspective. From the results gathered it can be concluded that although the design
of the ‘T’ beam was strong and had a smaller volume than most of the comparative
beam designs by other groups, the design was simply too stiff as the deflection was
not great enough. When tested the balsa beam had a deflection of 0.2 millimetres.
Although the beam was too stiff, the cost efficiency of the beam was quite high, only
having a volume of 134,775 mm^3. We did find that the glue was a major factor in
the strength behind the beam structure. However, when rotating the beam by 90
degrees and retesting the beam we found that the T beam completed the task. When
tested on its side the deflection measured 2.3 millimetres.

There were many limitations to our beam's design and structure. First off and the
most obvious point is that when testing the beam at its normal upright position, it
failed to have a deflection between 1 - 6.5 millimetres with the given parameters.
When testing on its side it did succeed however, the beam needed support with 2
hands and it did end up snapping during the test. Another limitation is how the
amount of glue used strengthened the structure making the results not as valid as
they should be. In conclusion, this experiment has expanded our view of what beam
materials and designs are suitable for large scale beams in engineering projects. Our
results have given a sound understanding of the problem, helping us apply theory to
real-world applications.

19
Self Assessment Sheet
ENGG102 Project 1A Beam Design and Reflection Report: Assessment sheet
Tutorial Number: 3
Team Number: 5
Aspect
ENGG102 Project 1A Beam
Design and Reflection Report:
Completed self assessment
sheet. Use PDF version from
Moodle
Appendix A: Minutes of Team
Meetings (evidence of
teamwork)
Appendix B: A completed copy
of your Team Ground Rules
Contract form
Structure of report, team
information etc (as per “what report
should contain)
Overall presentation
Brainstorming and rationale: List 3
distinct proposals Reasons for
selection of prototype
Description of beam
Drawing/sketches with dimensions
Results including comparison with
other team(s) WHAT happened!
Reflections – identify some
reasons for the performance of
your beam and other teams. WHY
it happened! Consider the various
aspects of the task (fabrication,
material use). Discuss how it might
be improved, what knowledge
might be needed, & design criteria
considered.
Mapping of learning outcomes
Conclusion
Total
Tutors Name: Kevin Marston
Date and Time of Exercise: 14/03/2022
Comment Mark
Minus 3 marks if this Self Assessment Sheet is
not included with the Project 1A Design and
Reflection Report
Minus 2 marks if Minutes of Team meetings (more
than 1) are not included with this report
Minus 2 marks if a copy of your Team Ground
Rules is not included with this report
0.5 mark for each item 3-12 5/5
(see Report structure provided above)
Neatness, Spelling, Grammar, Diagrams, 8/10
Professionalism
Must show evidence of developing at least two 4/5
distinct design ideas and variations/improvements to
one.
Describe the principle behind the design. 16/20
Accurate line drawings or neat and clear sketches
with all important dimensions (should enable tutor to
build the same structure)
Comparison table of all results. Discussion of results 7/10
with commentary on table and main factual findings.
Describe the main failure mechanisms.
To achieve top marks (35-40/40) in this section your 30/40
report must demonstrate clear and insightful reflection
considering own solution and others in the class.
Demonstrates further reading and critical analysis. To
achieve 25-35/40 your report must describe the
performances of your solution and some others.
Itemisation of knowledge gaps and some critique of
designs. To achieve 0-25/40: Describes own solution
with limited reference to other beams.
Identifies all the relevant outcomes from subject 5/5
outline and discusses how well each is addressed.
1 or 2 paragraphs that draw appropriate conclusions 5/5
from evidence presented in report. Include the main
results, both numerical and qualitative.
80/100
20
Bibliography

2020. An Introduction to Stress and Strain. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=aQf6Q8t1FQE> [Accessed 11 March 2022].

2019. Understanding Young's Modulus. [video] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=DLE-ieOVFjI> [Accessed 10 March 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 11 March 2022].

www.sciencedirect.com. (n.d.). Young’s Modulus - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. [online]

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/youngs-modulus.

Podut, A. (2018). Stress and Strain. pressbooks.bccampus.ca. [online] Available at:

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/powr4406/chapter/stress-and-strain/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2022].

(Callister, 01/2021)
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

21
Appendix A - Team Minutes

Meeting 1 - Monday 28/02/2022

Date of Typing Report: Thursday 8/03/2022

Purpose
This meeting's purpose was first to meet our team, then familiarise ourselves with
the requirements of Project 1A, and then to design and construct a beam.

Attendance and Apologies

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

Next Meeting
The next meeting is Monday 7/03/2022. The agenda for this meeting was agreed on
28/02/2022 to be the testing of our beam against the given criteria. It was also
agreed that the observation of other beams would be done, all to further the growth
of the report.

Meeting 2 - Monday 7/03/2022

Date of Typing Report: Thursday 8/03/2022

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to test our beam by applying a 2.5kg load and
measuring the deflection. It was also to observe other teams' beam performance and
to further the development of our project report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Matt Cordell, Tom Druhan, Jake Delaney
Missing: N/A

Follow Up
Since the previous meeting, we had familiarised ourselves thoroughly with the
project. The beam we had glued in the previous meeting had now dried, so
construction was complete.

Agenda and List of Actions

Actions included the assignment of report sections to every team member and the
specificities of how that work is to be completed correctly.

22
Ownership
Christiaan Joubert: Appendix A, reflection, brainstorming and rationale, bibliography,
the self-assessment
Matt Cordell: Reflection, mapping of learning outcomes, bibliography, the self-
assessment
Tom Druhan: Description of the beam, reflection, the self-assessment, appendix B,
results table, results comparison, statement of purpose
Jake Delaney: Conclusion, bibliography, reflection, the self-assessment

Next Meeting
The next meeting is established to be on 9/03/2022 from 8:30pm - 9:00pm. The
agendas for this meeting are relaying information, advice and questions to
teammates about the different sections of the report. It will be an online meeting.

Meeting 3 - Wednesday 9/03/2022

Date of Typing Report: 10/03/2022

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to share information, advice and questions about
the completion of the report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Matt Cordell, Tom 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.

Agenda and List of Actions

Formatting of reflection, brainstorming and results comparison was discussed. The
inclusion of additional researched information was addressed and specified with the
whole team.

Ownership
Formatting of reflection: all team members
Formatting of brainstorming section: Matt Cordell
Additional Research: all team members

Meeting 4 - Friday 11/03/2022

Date of Typing Report: 11/03/2022

23
Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to share information, advice and questions about
the remaining tasks in this report. Touching up was made to finalise the report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Matt Cordell, Tom 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.

Agenda and List of Actions

Reflection completion, results and comparison of results was completed and
discussed. Appropriate sources of information were referenced.

Ownership
Formatting of reflection: all team members
Additional Research: all team members

24
Appendix B - Team Ground Rules

ENGG102 Team Ground Rules and Contract Form

For a team to be effective it is a requirement that all team members understand their
responsibilities to one another. It can be useful to discuss and agree on certain
project ground rules.

All team members of T3T5 agree to:

1. Come to class and team meetings on time.
2. Come to meetings with assignments and other necessary preparations done.
3. Respect one another.
4. Help each other when the need arises.
5. Complete assigned components to the best of your ability.
6. Be open to suggestions of change/improvement to work that has been
already completed by a member.
7. Not remove or alter pieces of the report that other members are assigned to.

If a team member fails to meet these seven ground rules, other members are
entitled to receive monetary compensation and a written apology for their
efforts and contributions. A group discussion will be held to resolve the failed
rules.

If not resolved, this must be communicated with the tutor and a discussion will
be held between the member who has violated the rules and the tutor to
resolve the problem.

If still not resolved, there will be a discussion amongst all team members and
the tutor to suggest solutions to violating team laws. If an agreement cannot
be settled, the tutor will bring the problem to the attention of the subject
coordinator who will resolve the issue.

Tutorial Number: 3 Team: 5

Member signatures:

1 2

3 4

25
26