Comparison of Results:

There were many design types used by groups. The types of beams designed by the groups include
where I shaped beam and the box shaped beam. The I beam were the mostly build among the groups,
due to the fact that the I beam can be created by using the least amount of materials while still being
strong enough to support the criteria that was set for it to support 2.5kg of mass while maintaining a
deflection between 2mm and 5mm. Furthermore the groups also tried to apply the knowledge that we
gained from project 1A

Group A was close enough to fulfilling all criteria compared to the other teams. Group A beam have
used minimal materials to build a boxed shaped beam where the measure deflection (1.9 mm) was close
enough with the calculated deflection (1.8 mm) even though it didn’t meet the criteria. The main reason
of their failure was the miscalculation of their beam span length which cause the beam to be shorter
than the specification. However, with the proper span it is likely this beam would have met the criteria.

Group B choose to build an I shaped beam with a measured volume of 167475 mm^3 even though it
didn’t meet up the criteria. Group B used a medium fabrication effort to build the beam. The beam had
a huge difference in measured deflection (15 mm) and the calculated deflection (4.34 mm).
Furthermore, the measured deflection is three times greater than the required deflection and it is the
highest deflection among all other groups. The issue that caused the failure was that the glue didn’t get
enough time to dry. Which caused a separation between the wooden pieces was observed and
deflection increased at a somewhat steady rate as this occurred during the test.

Group C had the most successful beam design among others groups which fulfilled all criteria. Just like
Group B, Group C also build an I shaped beam with same amount of material used and medium
fabrication effort were given to build the beam. The measured deflection (5mm) was greater than
calculated (2.8 mm) but still within the specified range of the require deflection. It seems like the team
had used too high value to calculate the young modulus while designing the beam.
Group D has built an boxed shaped beam with a medium fabrication effort which have a volume of
171,325mm^3. Just like most other groups, Group D were also unsuccessful to fulfill the required
criteria. The measured deflection were three times greater than the calculated deflection. Just like group
B, The main reason of the failure seems that the glue didn’t have enough time to dry as separation
between the wooden pieces was observed and deflection increased at a somewhat steady rate as this
occurred.

Group E also build the most popular I shaped beam while using medium amount of material to build the
beam. Just like other groups it also failed to fulfill the criteria. Group D and Group E have same
measured and calculated deflection. Furthermore, Group B, D and E faced the same issue for their
failure in beam deflection.

The main failure mechanism among all groups was using too high young modulus while designing the
beam. Furthermore, the thing that was not accorded was building the beam and testing it on the same
day made it difficult for the glue to dry. These factors of the test contribute to a variety of measured
deflections, despite having a very similar design among other groups that also chose the I-beam or Box
shaped beam. To add to this, the beam itself may not be at an angle perfectly perpendicular to the floor,
which would contribute to measurements differing from calculations.

There were numerous design types that groups used. The groups created several beam types, such as I-
shaped beams and boxed-shaped beams. The I-shaped beam was the most frequently built among the
groups because it can be built with the fewest materials and is still strong enough to meet the
requirements for supporting 2.5 kg of mass and retaining a deflection between 2mm and 5mm.
Additionally, the groups attempted to use the knowledge we learned from Project 1A.

Comparatively, to the other teams, Group A came the closest to satisfying all the requirements.
Although Group A's boxed-shaped beam did not match the criterion, it was constructed with few
materials. It had a measure deflection of 1.9 mm, close enough to the calculated deflection of 1.8 mm.
Their incorrectly calculated beam span length, which resulted in a shorter span length than required,
was the primary cause of their failure. But it's conceivable that this beam would have met the
requirements if it had the right span length.

Group B chose to construct an I-shaped beam with a measured volume of 167475 mm3, although it did
not match the criteria. Group B employed a medium fabrication effort to build the beam. The beam's
measured deflection (15 mm) and the calculated deflection (4.34 mm) were significantly different.
Additionally, the measured deflection is the largest among all other groups and is three times higher
than the required deflection. While building the beam, the glue wasn't given enough time to dry, which
was the problem that led to the failure. During the test, a separation between the wooden pieces was
noted, and deflection increased steadily.

Group C had the most successful beam design among the groups that met all criteria. Like Group B,
Group C also constructed an I-shaped beam using the same quantity of material and a moderate amount
of manufacturing work. The measured deflection (5 mm) was higher than the calculated deflection (2.8
mm) but was still within the acceptable deflection range. When developing the beam, the team
apparently overestimated the young modulus value in their calculation.

Group D constructed a 171,325mm3-volume boxed-shaped beam with a medium fabrication effort. Like
most other groups, Group D also couldn't meet the requirements. The estimated deflection was three
times smaller than the measured deflection. Similar to group B, the primary cause of failure appears to
be that the glue did not have sufficient time to dry since the separation between the wooden pieces was
noticed, and deflection increased at a relatively steady rate as this occurred.

Group E also built the most popular I-shaped beam using a medium amount of material to construct the
beam. Like other groups, it was unable to meet the requirements. The measured and calculated
deflections for Group D and Group E are identical. Groups B, D, and E also experienced the same
problem with their beam deflection failure.

The main failure mechanism among all groups was using too high young modulus value while designing
the beam. Additionally, the fact that the beam was constructed and tested on the same day made it
difficult for the glue to dry. These test factors contribute to various measured deflections, despite having
a similar design among other groups that also chose the I-beam or Box shaped beam.

The overall purpose of this experiment was to design a beam structure that with a beam span length of
around 650mm and had a mass of 2.5kg placed on top of the Centre of the beam that would create a
deflection in the beam of between 2 - 5mm. An average of Young modulus value was calculated by using
the data found in Project 1A and that gave us an approximate calculated deflection of our beam. .
Compared to the other group beam experiments our beam was fairly strong. During the test the balsa
beam had a deflection of 2.7mm. Although our beam didn’t meet the criteria, compared to the other
successful group. Out of all the Groups only one groups met the criteria. The main reason which caused
the majority of the group to fail the beam deflection test was inaccurate value of young modulus while
designing the beam and building the beam and testing it on the same day made it difficult for the glue to
dry. Only one group out of all the groups met the requirements. The main factor that contributed to
most of the group failing the beam deflection test was an incorrect calculation of the young modulus.
Furthermore, constructing and testing the beam on the same day made it challenging for the glue to dry,
contributing to the failure.

The main objective of this experiment was to construct a beam with a span length of around 650mm
and a mass of 2.5 kg placed on top of the centre of the beam that would cause a deflection in the beam
of 2 to 5 mm. Using the information from Project 1A, we estimated the average Young modulus value,
which provided us with an approximation of the calculated deflection of our beam. In comparison to the
other group beam experiments, our beam was quite strong. The test result showed a 2.7mm deflection
in the balsa beam. Although, in comparison to the other successful group, our beam did not match the
requirements.

Communication= Regularly keeping in touch with the team member

Helpful= helping other team members when needed

Completing their task on time= time management

Leadership

effort

Pulley radius= 90

Brass= 0. 23

Initially when designing the beam we had to weigh up 3 potential designs to consider which model will
meet the criteria with the least amount of fabrication effort and material used. Initially We thought of
building a box shaped beam because just by looking it appears to be the strongest design as shown in
figure a. The second design that came in our mind was building an I shaped beam as shown in figure b.
Because we felt like this design has the smallest fabrication effort and amount of material needed.
Although after discussing between the group members, we calculated that I shaped beam would require
the most material than box shaped beam. Furthermore, the I shaped beam would deflect more than the
box shaped beam which will exceed our criteria. Therefore we decided to build a box shaped beam.
The principle of designing an box shaped beam was because it will take lower amount of material and
less amount of fabrication effort. Furthermore, The vertical balsa wood sheets on the outer side of the
long square sections help to distribute the load evenly across the entire length of the beam, minimising
the amount of deflection that occurs. Additionally, the long square sections on the top and bottom of
the beam provide additional stiffness and resistance to bending and torsion.

Based on the calculations we decided to go with the box shaped beam (Idea 1) as it produced the
smallest deflection which was within the initial criteria of a deflection of 2mm to 5mm. At the same time
the box shaped beam either used the same amount of materials or lesser when compared to the other
ideas. This makes it the obvious decision as it is the most efficient and effective when compared to the
ideas we came up with

We chose the box-shaped beam (Idea 1) because, according to the calculations, it produced the smallest
deflection and fulfilled the initial criteria of a deflection of 2 to 5 mm. In contrast to the other concepts,
the box-shaped beam either use the same amount of materials or less. This makes it the apparent
choice because, when compared to the concepts we came up with, it is the most efficient and effective.