L‭ ink:‬

‭https://docs.google.com/document/d/10gePeQgazCE36nk6I2DvZR7S3Z-F93I8ZfYTzoepov0/edit?usp=sha‬
‭ring‬

T‭ his is mainly just the skeletal structure of the IA, I mostly want to know what else to write about in the‬
‭conclusion and data analysis sections.‬

‭Question‬

‭What is the relationship between force and the deflection of a cantilever beam?‬

‭Context‬

T‭ he purpose of this research paper is to examine how adding more weight would affect the distance‬
‭deflected by a cantilever beam. A cantilever beam, as shown in figure 1 is a beam which has one fixed‬
‭end (A) and one free end (B).‬

T‭ here are several equations describing deflection angle and deflection distance of cantilever beams. The‬
‭one that predicts deflection distance is:‬
‭3‬
‭ ‭𝐿
𝐹 ‬‬
δ = ‭3‬‭𝐸𝐼‬
‭ here‬δ ‭is the deflection, F is the force in N, L is the length of the beam in m, E is the Young’s Modulus‬
W
‭of the beam, and I is the moment of inertia.‬
‭A similar equations predicts the deflection angle:‬
‭2‬
‭ ‭𝐿
𝐹 ‬‬
δ = ‭2‬‭𝐸𝐼‬
T‭ hese two equations are used when force is applied to the end of the beam (point B in figure 1), exactly‬
‭what my experiment plans to do.‬

‭How much do I need for context/background research?‬

‭Research Design‬

T‭ he independent variable of this experiment is force measured in Newtons. I measured masses on a‬

‭scale before attaching them to the beam. The interval between each successive mass was roughly 50g.‬
‭Multiplying by gravity, I obtained the force exerted by the mass.‬

T‭ he dependent variable was beam deflection, which I measured in centimeters. After clamping the beam‬
‭to the counter, I placed a meter stick level to the surface of the counter and observed the initial‬
‭deflection of the beam from its own weight. In this case, the beam was stiff enough to remain level with‬
‭the counter and the meter stick. After attaching a mass to the end of the ruler, I measured the‬
‭perpendicular distance from the meter stick to the point at which the mass was attached. I performed‬
‭this trial three times for each mass. Between successive trials, I also ensured that the beam returned to‬
‭its initial position to make sure it did not pass its elastic limit.‬

T‭ here were many control variables that were critical to be ensured in this experiment. By illustrating the‬
‭procedure, I will show how these variables were controlled.‬

T‭ he beam was clamped down at 2 points to ensure that the length protruding from the edge of the‬
‭counter was consistent and that there was no bending elsewhere in the beam. This controlled the length‬
‭of the cantilever beam. To ensure that the beam met the counter perpendicularly, it was aligned with‬
‭one edge of the counter so that the other one would be perpendicular.‬

I‭nsert a diagram of the experiment and some more procedural information detailing control variables‬
‭and methodology…‬

‭Data Analysis‬

‭Of course I would include uncertainty for the data and graph of the real IA‬

‭Mass (g) ± 0.1‬ ‭Trial 1 ± 0.2 cm‬ ‭Trial 2 ± 0.2 cm‬ ‭Trial 3 ± 0.2 cm‬ ‭Average Trial‬
‭50.7‬ ‭2.6‬ ‭2.5‬ ‭2.5‬ ‭2.5‬
‭94.3‬ ‭4.5‬ ‭4.6‬ ‭4.7‬ ‭4.6‬
‭148.7‬ ‭7.1‬ ‭7.2‬ ‭7.2‬ ‭7.2‬
‭199.7‬ ‭9.1‬ ‭9.1‬ ‭9.1‬ ‭9.1‬
‭247.5‬ ‭11.0‬ ‭10.9‬ ‭11.0‬ ‭11.0‬
 ‭291.6‬ ‭12.4‬ ‭12.1‬ ‭12.3‬ ‭12.3‬
‭346.8‬ ‭14.3‬ ‭14.1‬ ‭14.0‬ ‭14.1‬
‭390.2‬ ‭15.2‬ ‭15.4‬ ‭15.3‬ ‭15.3‬
‭438.3‬ ‭16.3‬ ‭16.3‬ ‭16.2‬ ‭16.3‬

‭How much does data that does not need to be straightened affect my mark?‬

T‭ he following graph illustrates the relationship obtained between mass (g) and deflection distance (cm).‬
‭The shape of the graph is roughly linear, showing that an increase in mass leads to a corresponding‬
‭factor increase in deflection distance.‬

‭ owever, the graph displays signs of a square root graph towards the higher values of mass. When I‬
H
‭performed the experiment, I measured the starting and ending positions of the beam before and after‬
‭attaching the mass. These all turned out to be at 0, therefore, it is unlikely that the curving in the graph is‬
‭due to going beyond the elastic limit of the beam. I believe the cause of the decrease in the rate of‬
‭increase of the deflection of the beam with increase in mass is due to the angle of the applied force.‬
‭Since the beam curves as the weight pulls down on it, the force stops being applied perpendicular to the‬
‭beam. At small deflections, the angle of force applied is fairly negligible, but at higher deflections, it‬
‭becomes significant.‬

‭2‬
‭𝐹‭𝐿‬‬
‭Let me illustrate this property using the angle of deflection formula:‬δ = ‭ ‬‭𝐸𝐼‬
2

T‭ o begin, I need to calculate the Young’s Modulus and Moment of Inertia of the beam.‬
‭Calculate Young’s Modulus using E = stress/strain‬
‭Calculate Moment of Inertia using the thin (both ways) rectangular plate formula‬
F‭ or example, when the mass is 50.7g,‬‭calculate angle…‬
‭At this angle, the force applied perpendicular to the beam would be‬‭split component of force and find…‬

‭Now, when the mass is at 247.5g,‬‭repeat above…‬

‭When the mass is at 438.3g,‬‭repeat again…‬

‭ sing ratios, show that the ratio increase between 50 and 250 is larger compared to between 250 and‬
U
‭450…‬

‭Insert a graph of “apparent force” compared to deflection distance. I expect it to be more linear?‬

‭A linear relationship here makes more sense because if we look back at the deflection distance formula:‬
‭3‬
‭ ‭𝐿
𝐹 ‬‬
δ = ‭3‬‭𝐸𝐼‬
‭, we see that an increase in force is a proportional increase in deflection. In other words, since‬
‭the only variable in the equation I am changing is Force (F), then the relationship is linear.‬

S‭ ince now I also have a calculated value of E and I, and I have L, I would calculate the theoretical‬
‭deflection distance and compare it to my values.‬

‭ alculate percent difference (using the percent error formula?) and explain possible reasons for a higher‬
C
‭or lower theoretical value…‬

‭Conclusion‬

T‭ he relationship between force and deflection, according to my data, is linear.‬‭Mention uncertainties and‬
‭confidence…‬

‭Find sources that mention this relationship and discuss…‬

‭3‬
‭ ‭𝐿
𝐹 ‬‬
‭Reiterate the relationship using the deflection distance formula:‬δ = ‭3‬‭𝐸𝐼‬
‭, to justify…‬

‭ owever, this relationship only applies when force is increasingly applied perpendicular to the beam,‬
H
‭such that all force is used to do useful work‬‭…‬

‭Insert concluding statement…‬

‭Evaluation‬

‭I think I can figure this out in my real IA.‬