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 2A Design of a

cantilevered beam structure

Date and time due: 2/05/2022 – 11:59 pm

Tutorial Number: 3

Team Letter: T3T5

Total number of pages: 19

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
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.

3
 ENGG102 Project 2A Design and Reflection Report: Self-Assessment sheet

Tutorial number: 3 Tutors name: Kevin Marston Team Number: 5

Date and time of exercise: 30/04/2022
Names and ID Numbers: Christiaan Joubert (7248386) Jake Delaney (7622430) Matthew
Cordell (7480556) Thomas Druhan (7326099)

Aspect Comment Mark

ENGG102 Project 2A Design and
Reflection Report: Self-Assessment
sheet. Use PDF version from Moodle
Appendix A: Minutes of Team Meetings
(evidence of teamwork)
Structure of report, team information etc
(as per “what report should contain”)
Overall Presentation
Problem definition
Analysis and calculations
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
(Challenges with new concepts,
assumptions made).
Discuss how your predictions and
calculations might be improved, what
knowledge might be needed, and concepts
considered.
Minus 3 marks if this Self-assessment Sheet is not
included with the Project 2A Design and Reflection
Report
Minus 5 marks if Minutes of Team Meetings (more
than one!) are not included with this Report
0.5 mark for each item 3-10 (see Report structure above).
5/5
Neatness Spelling
Grammar Diagrams
Professionalism 9/10
Define the problem. Identify concepts involved.
What you are able to calculate and what you assumed. 5/5
Clearly present all calculations using the 6-step method.
Include all appropriate FBDs with calculations to predict
the total mass to give system equilibrium.
Concepts or issues that are not yet known and affect the
accuracy of calculations should be identified.
15/20
Comparison table of all results with commentary on table.
Discussion of results including comparison of all team's
results and main factual findings.
Identify best performing teams. 8/10
To achieve top marks (35-40/40) in this section your
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 yours
and others predictions.
To achieve 0-25/40: Describes own solution with limited
reference to other beams.
33/40

Mapping of learning outcomes Identifies all the relevant outcomes from subject outline
and discusses how well each is addressed. 5/5
Conclusion 1 or 2 paragraphs that draw appropriate conclusions from
evidence presented in report. Include the main results,
both numerical and qualitative.
5/5
Total 85/100

4
 ENGG102
Project 2A
Design of cantilevered beam structure

5
Table of Contents
Statement of purpose............................................................................................................................7
Team’s calculations...............................................................................................................................8
Results of all teams’ experiments........................................................................................................10
Comparison of results..........................................................................................................................11
Reflection............................................................................................................................................12
Subject mapping..................................................................................................................................14
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................16
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................17
Appendix A (Team Minutes)................................................................................................................18

6
Statement of purpose

The design of a cantilevered beam structure is required to lift an end mass of 300g from a
boom of length 370mm. This crane appropriately has a counterbalance mass of ‘M’ on an
adjustable inclined plane to create static equilibrium in the system under the right
conditions.

This report aims to provide our team's rationale for loaded deflection by changes to the
pulley angle, pulley radius, and material slider type. It also demonstrates detailed FBD
sketches of our team's system and compares the results of our test with other teams’ setups
to measure deflection from an applied load.

In addition, 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 outlines how well we worked as a team and provides
suggestions for improvements on our design if it was to be completed yet again.

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.

Team’s calculations

7
Below are our team’s calculations that allow for the system to be in equilibrium and the
deflection in the system when a load is applied at point C.

Table 1: Friction coefficients for aluminium used in the calculation (link in bibliography)

8
 Position 1 (Minus 45°) Position 2 (Horizontal) Deflection Comments
Results of all teams’ experiments

TEAM Free 2nd Inclined Slider Pulley Hanging Actual Prediction Table 2: Results
Actual table of cantilevered
Prediction Prediction beam test
Measured Observations -
Length Moment Plane Friction Radius Mass Counter Counter
(M in g) & (M in g) & (mm) deflection Anything unusual, explaining
(L) of Area Angle Material used Mass Mass
(m in g) briefly WHAT happened and WHY
(B, A, S, (R) incl RATIO of incl RATIO of (mm)
(mm) (I) (θ in
W)/Coeffici Slider Prediction Slider Prediction
degrees) ( mm)
(mm^4) ent (M in g) vs. Actual (M in g) vs. Actual
1 370 26625.30 40 B , 0.15 100 300 2095 2009 2765 2841 0.03 3.5 N/A
1:1.04 1:1.02

2 370 26625.00 50 B , 0.2-0.6 100 300 1166 10246 2366 14490 0.09 3.3-3.5 Extremely high ratio relative to
4.33 : 1 6.12 : 1 other teams.

3 370 26625.00 45 A , 0.4 100 300 2573 2770 1733 1960 0.50 3.5 Highest counter mass and second
1.08 : 1 1.13 : 1 highest prediction for position 1.

4 370 19096.17 45 B , 0.51 100 300 1775 2260 2615 3109 0.77 3.3 Highest predicted deflection and
4:5 21 :25 lowest actual deflection.

5 370 26625.33 45 A, 1.23 100 300 1573 900 2273 1300 0.70 3.5 System produced deflection equal
1:1.73 1:1.75 to that of team 1 and 3 despite
different variables.
6 370 26625.00 50 A , 1.1 100 300 1823 2001 2274 2830 0.50 3.3 Same deflection as team 4 and
1.10 : 1 1.02 : 1 similar to team 7 given that all
surfaces of slider were different.
7 370 14288.00 45 S , 0.6 100 300 1646 1.78 : 1 1646 2182 0.60 3.4 N/A

9
Comparison of results

It is first important to understand the nature of cantilevered beams and how they work. A cantilever
beam is a rigid structural element that is supported at one end and free to move at the other.
Typically, a cantilevered beam in the industry can be made of either concrete or steel where one end
is anchored to a vertical support. It is a horizontal beam structure whose free end is exposed to
vertical loads. The span is typically long given that the structure can counteract the moments
generated by the cantilever and safely transfer it to the ground. Detailed analysis and design of the
structure can help to study the possibility of long spanned cantilever beams.

A cantilever beam typically bends downwards when it is subjected to vertical loads. It can be
subjected to point load, uniform load, or varying load. Irrespective of the type of load, it bends
downwards by creating a convexity upwards. This bending creates tension in the upper fibre and
compression in the lower fibres. Hence, during the design of cantilever beams, the main
reinforcement is provided to the upper fibre of a concrete beam, to withstand the tensile stress
safely.

Our experimental results for both positions were roughly 75% greater than the predictions.
Compared to group 3 who also used aluminium sliders and a 100mm pulley radius, our predictions
were significantly smaller. This may be due to using a much larger value for the coefficient of friction
of aluminium on aluminium. Group 3 used 0.4, whereas we used 1.23. This may be due to us using
dry friction instead of lubricated friction coefficient. As well as this, our experiment showed an
increased mass is necessary when the beam is in equilibrium at horizontal, however, group 3 (who
had the same variables) showed that mass decreases towards a horizontal beam. A reliable
conclusion from the results table is that beam deflection calculation is far smaller than the actual
deflection. This may be due to an imperfect beam, as it is very difficult to construct a beam perfectly.
The timber grain direction and amount of glue used can also contribute to this.

Out of all the groups, our predicted masses were the smallest, possibly due to us using the greatest
value for the friction coefficient. Group 1 performed the best in terms of accuracy of predictions,
having only overpredicted the necessary weights by 0.4% and 0.2%. Group 2 performed the best in
terms of calculating beam deflection being the closest to 3.5mm. Overall, group 6 performed the
best on average, as both their mass predictions and beam deflection were relatively accurate.

10
Reflection

Calculation Processes

When undertaking the calculations, we found it most difficult to comprehend how the force of
friction is solely responsible for the tension force in the wire, and not compounded by the weight
force down the ramp of the mass. Our team also unnecessarily used the vertical force of ‘m’ in
position 1, instead of the perpendicular component which is responsible for the moment arm about
the pulley. These concepts are now well understood and will be avoided in attempt 2 by looking back
at our attempt 1 calculations.

Prediction Accuracy

Our team performed relatively well in predicting the required counterbalance mass to achieve
equilibrium. We conclude this by comparing our ratio with other groups, where we fall slightly above
average in accuracy. Our calculations show that a greater mass is required when the beam is at a
horizontal angle, which supports the theory of a longer moment arm results in a larger moment,
given the applied force remains constant. Our experimental masses were on average 74% larger
than our calculated masses. Other groups had a difference ranging from 2% up to 612%, meaning
our difference of 74% shows relative accuracy in calculations. This disparity in accuracy is due to
using varying values for slider friction coefficient for the same material, as well as miscalculating the
second moment of area of the beam.

Calculation Improvements

Firstly, rougher surfaces have a higher coefficient of friction. This makes sense in terms of a model in
which friction is described as arising from chemical bonds between the atoms of the two surfaces at
their points of contact: very flat surfaces allow more atoms to come in contact.

The main variables that induced a disparity in calculation results are which value for the coefficient
of friction and elasticity modulus were used. To further improve, using a range for the coefficient of
friction and modulus elasticity instead of a fixed value would yield more accurate predictions, as the
real coefficient of friction of the slider material used may fall within that range. That way, we would
be able to generate a deflection that is more closely aligned with our experimental value.

Conceptual Knowledge

Our understanding of how sliding masses behave on inclined surfaces has been enhanced through
the experiment. An object placed on an inclined surface will often slide freely down the surface. The
rate at which the object slides down the surface is dependent upon how inclined the surface is; the
greater the angle of inclination is, the faster the rate at which the object will slide down it. In physics,
objects are known to accelerate down inclined planes because of an unbalanced force. To
understand this type of motion, it is important to analyse the forces acting upon an object on an
inclined plane. These were; the force of gravity provided by mass, the normal force and the frictional
force or, in this scenario, the force of tension.

Prior to this experiment, the understanding was that tension force is supplied by the force of friction
as well as the force due to gravity down the slope. However, by calculating and performing the
experiment it was learnt that the force of gravity down the slope supplies a force of friction, which
then supplies tension force in the wire that runs through the pulley system. An in-depth reading of

11
‘Chapter 8 of Fundamentals of Engineering Mechanics, T.McCarthy’ supplements the responses to
friction problems, and will help fill knowledge and conceptual gaps before the second attempt.

Prediction Analysis

As a team, we decided to fix the variable of pulley radius at 100mm, incline angle at 45 degrees and
slider material as aluminium. We arrived at these decisions efficiently, all agreeing on them in a
short period of time given the constraints of the lesson and testing. We chose 45 degrees as it allows
for ease of calculation meaning we will get an exact value when trigonometry is applied. Aluminium
was used as we assumed it would have the least friction, meaning that more mass is required. When
more mass is required, the margin of experimental error is reduced. This could thereby raise the
validity of our predictions and results. It is possible that our team did not consider enough options
and would have liked to experiment with other slider materials as a way of observing the effects of
friction first-hand. A side-by-side analysis could be made if this were the case.

12
Subject mapping

To this current date, within the subject of ENGG102, our team has explored Newton's fundamental
laws of motion and has 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.
We have also learnt to draw relevant free body diagrams to explain all the forces acting on an object.
We have then used the necessary trigonometry, algebra, forces in the x direction, forces in the y
direction and moments about critical points to analyse beam systems.

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.
The cantilevered aspect adds to this.

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

mechanics.

The balsa wood beam and pulley system 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 and pulley setup with suspended masses has taught self-directed learning
given each team chose variables such as pulley radius, slider material and angle of inclination. This
had to satisfy the problem of applying a load to generate deflection in the testing phase.

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

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 and
cantilevered beam applications to then make an analysis.

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

individuals in a team.

13
The cantilevered 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.

14
Conclusion

The overall purpose of the project is to design a cantilevered beam structure to lift an end mass of
300g from a boom of length 370mm, and most importantly, determine the deflection when a load is
applied to this arm. This report has provided our team’s rationale for loaded deflection by changes
to the pulley angle, pulley radius, and material slider type. From the results obtained, it can be
concluded that our predictions compared to the actual measured results were substantially
different, although several other groups were far off too. In our results for the weight of the
counterweight, our measured results were approximately 75% smaller than our predicted results
with a ratio of 1 : 1.73 for position 1, and 1 : 1.75 for position 2. These values for position 1 were a
prediction of 900g and 1573g for the actual result. For position 2, 1300g was predicted and 2273g for
the actual result. It was concluded that this may be due to using a much larger value for the
coefficient of friction for the slider of aluminium on aluminium. The results for the deflection were
even further off with a predicted deflection of 0.7mm compared to a measured result of 3.5mm. This
may be due to an imperfect beam, as it is very difficult to construct a beam perfectly. It was
understood that the balsa grain direction and amount of glue used can also contribute to this.

Consequently, this experiment has broadened our team's understandability of cantilevered beam
designs as well as how to engineer an accurate cantilever system. It has also made us further
understand how the weight of a counterbalance can change when there are certain variables such as
pulley radius and arm length. Our results have indicated a strong understanding of the problem,
helping us apply theory to a real-world application.

15
Bibliography

Balsa :: MakeItFrom.com. (2018, August 2). Makeitfrom.com.

<https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/Balsa> [Accessed 2 April 2022]

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

v=aQf6Q8t1FQE> [Accessed 5 April 2022].

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

v=DLE-ieOVFjI> [Accessed 5 April 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 6 April 2022].

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

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/youngs-modulus. [Accessed 3 April
2022]

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

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/powr4406/chapter/stress-and-strain/ [Accessed 3 April 2022].

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

Engineering ToolBox. (2004). Friction and Friction Coefficients. Engineeringtoolbox.com.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html

Properties: Aluminum - Advantages and Properties of Aluminum. (2019). Properties: Aluminum -

Advantages and Properties of Aluminum. AZoM.com. https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?
ArticleID=1446

16
Appendix A (Team Minutes)

Meeting 1 - Monday 11/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 30/04/2022

Purpose

This meeting's purpose was to test the cantilevered system in class and record our decisions and
results to talk about in the report.

Attendance and Apologies

Present: Christiaan Joubert, Jake Delaney, Thomas Druhan

Missing: Matt Cordell

Next Meeting

The next meeting is Friday 29/04/2022. The agenda for this meeting was agreed upon on
11/04/2022 and was an online meeting where our team discussed the accuracy of results from
testing on 11/04/2022 before assigning team members to sections of the report.

Meeting 2 - Friday 29/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 30/04/2022

Purpose

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the accuracy of results from testing on 11/04/2022 and
assign team members to sections of the report.

Attendance and Apologies

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

Missing: N/A

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. The teams' calculations were discussed at length.

Ownership

Christiaan Joubert: Appendix A, reflection, calculations, bibliography, the self-assessment

Matt Cordell: Reflection, subject mapping, bibliography, the self-assessment

Thomas Druhan: Statement of purpose, reflection, the self-assessment, results table, calculations,
bibliography

Jake Delaney: Conclusion, bibliography, reflection, the self-assessment, results comparison,

calculations

Next Meeting

17
The next meeting was established to be on 30/04/2022 from 9:30 am – 10:00 am. The agenda for
this meeting was relaying information, advice and questions to teammates about the different
sections of the report. It was also an online meeting.

Meeting 3 - Saturday 30/04/2022

Date of Typing Report: Saturday 30/04/2022

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, Thomas 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. Further mapping of the resolution of the project was heavily discussed.

Agenda and List of Actions

Formatting of reflection and the comparison of the results were discussed. The inclusion of
additional researched information was addressed and specified with the whole team. This was then
referenced.

Ownership

Formatting of reflection: all team members

Additional Research: all team members

18