1.

Objectives

To design and construct the most efficient structure to carry a load in the arrangement as
shown in Figure 1. The beam is to be constructed from Medium Density Fiberboard, each of
which is 800 50 6 . They are to be glued together with hot melt adhesive (HMA). The
time allocated to construction is 30 minutes.

2. Design

Draw several possible arrangements with one to six pieces of

6 6+1
MDF. There should be
= 21 possible solutions.
2
For each one, calculate the efficiency ratio, which is given by

.

Failure load is calculated using the Flexure Formula = ,

where is the modulus of rupture of MDF, is the maximum

bending moment along the beam in terms of an arbitrary load
(calculated using hand-calculations and the LUSAS software as
seen in Figure 2), is the distance from the centroid to the
furthest edge in the vertical direction and is the second moment
of area of the cross-section.
Mass is determined using the formula = , where is
the number of pieces, V is the volume of each piece and is the
density of MDF.
The ratios for all 21 designs were compared and the design with
the highest ratio was taken as our final design and constructed.
The optimum design was four planks composing the web and two
one beam for each flange (Figure 3), with a ratio failure load of
7 and mass of 1.35 , giving a ratio of 5.6 /.

3. Construction

The beam was constructed using HMA, which was generously applied
very quickly to the entire length of the beam in a zig-zag pattern. The
beam was held together with ten rubber bands to aid the setting of
the glue for 15 minutes. The final product with the MDF and HMA
comprises the background of this poster

Figure 1

Figure 3

4. Results

The beam had a total selfweight of 1.2 and held

a total load of 6.9 as
seen in Figure 4. This gave
an efficiency of 5.8 /.
This ratio was very similar
to the theoretical design
ratio of 5.6 /.
The beam failed through
fracture at the location of
voids in the glue which
provided a weakness in
the web of the beam.

Figure 2

Figure 4

5. Conclusion

The design of the beam was the best and cannot be much further improved. Calculating the theoretical
load and efficiency for all 21 possible designs using hand-calculations and programs ensured that the
optimum design was chosen. The variability and thus further improvement hinges on the construction
phase. There were many factors to consider for construction which were not planned in advance. Firstly,
the time allotted was 30 minutes for construction. Research on the behavior of HMA with time and
further analysis would have allowed the team to determine the optimal ratio for assembly and setting. It
would have also allowed us to determine the amount of glue which would have given the highest
hardened strength after 30 minutes.