1. ENGG101
PROJECT
1
–
ATTEMPT
A
REFLECTION
REPORT
Project: Design of balsa beam structure to
carry a static load
TUTORIAL 2
GROUP B
TEAM MEMBERS: BEAU PROUDFOOT
JAKE ASHLEY
LEO DE O. C. CORDEBELLO
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG – FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
TUTOR: DR NEAZ SHEIKH
2. Table
of
contents
Statement of purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Brainstorming/rationale……………………………………………………………….…………………………. 2
Beam design…………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… 4
o Materials………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 4
o Cutting list…………………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 5
o Sketches…………………………………………………………………….………………………………… 6
o Principle behind the design……………………………………..…………………………………… 8
Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 9
Reflection………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 11
o Fabrication and design…………………………………………………………………………….… 11
o Performance of beam relative to other groups………………………………………….. 12
o Understanding of beam behaviour…………………………………………………………….. 12
o Team decision making…………………………………………………………………................ 14
Mapping of learning outcomes……………………………………………………………………………... 16
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...17
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
3. Statement
of
purpose
The purpose of the project is to design a beam structure from balsa wood that
would carry a static load of 2.5kg (24.5N) over a clear span of 400 mm. The
criteria specified the beam must reach a central deflection between 1mm and
6.5mm, with a height of no more than 75mm. The aim was to create a beam
using minimal volume, hence the imposed material restriction, as well as
meeting the other criteria.
Aside from the beam, this task has multiple aspects that included teamwork,
design skills, communication skills and fabrication skills. The project required
three strangers to quickly familiarise themselves with each other, learn each
other’s strengths and weaknesses and design a beam according to the above
original purpose. It required the team to work together in fabricating the
beam. Finally this task required the team to communicate often in order to
assign roles for the following report to be written.
Ultimately this task entailed what many professional engineers encounter on a
daily basis: designing structures, thinking collectively in a group, working
together and communicating and creating something useful and applicable
using fundamental laws of nature.
4. Brainstorming
and
rationale
Design 1
Initially our first concept was the simple I beam. With two balsa square beams (6x6mm) at 450 mm
glued to each side of the balsa sheet top and bottom in a parallel form. We collectively decided that
this would be the best support for the weight whilst using minimum materials. Upon receiving the
materials for our first model we realised that the material was too weak. This simple model may
have used the least material but we expected it was not enough to support the 2.5 kg weight. The
thin sheet of balsa was very bendy and we concluded that we must find a way to add extra support
to the I-beam otherwise it would break once the weight had been added to it.
Design 2
We then came up with two moderations to the I-beam. We used a piece of balsa square section
(3x3mm) and arched it between the top and bottom square pieces so that the resistant force in the
arch would keep the structure rigid when the weight is added. We were to put an arch of balsa
5. square each side of the beam. Our second design also included plans to complete the border of the
sheet with 3x3mm rods to create a square border that would border both the sheet and the arch to
add extra stability. This design seemed difficult and potentially would take too long to produce and
we were uncertain of how well it would work. As a group we thought of a simpler design that would
be easier to fabricate yet it would prove effective.
This led to our third and final design.
Design 3
Our final design was still an I-beam but with vertical and horizontal supports in order to increase
strength of the I-beam. We decided to remove the arch but to keep the square border of the sheet;
we then worked on strengthening the large area of sheet inside the border. We placed three balsa
square beams horizontally each side evenly between the top square beams. Then added six smaller
pieces of Balsa Square above the horizontal pieces two below and two each end, this all to both
sides. These were in place to reinforce the I-beam and reduce the amount of bend.
Why this design prevailed and was chosen
- Unlike the first design, this design increased the rigidity of the balsa sheet by
reducing the large area of sheet that had the potential to flex/bend. The square rods
would strengthen the sheet; although it would use more materials it seemed
necessary in order to meet the maximum deformation specifications.
- The materials would be very simple to produce and the design would be fairly easy
to fabricate. Unlike design 2 where the arch would be very fiddly/difficult to
produce, simple straight cuts were used which are easy to measure, cut and glue
- There were no major weak spots or flaws in this design and we all agreed on the
simple but effective nature of this design
6. Our
chosen
design
There were several factors that ultimately influenced the design of the beam.
1. Dimension specifications: The team was limited to a quantity of materials that had to
meet certain specifications. Firstly the beam had to span at least 400mm. Secondly
the beam could not be higher than 75mm.
2. Quantity of materials allowed: certain combinations of supplies were allowed. The
team was limited to 1 sheet of balsa wood of dimensions 450mm x 75mm x 1.5mm
(L x W x H) and up to a maximum of six 900mm long square rods with the following
restrictions: 3x3mm max of 4, 5x5mm max 2 and 6.5x6.5mm max 2.
3. Deflection limitations: the beam would have to deflect at least 1mm but no more
than 6.5mm. Therefore we had to design a beam which would allow some central
deflection.
After accounting for these specifications the team opted for the following materials:
Base Materials
Using the materials we came up with 3 designs discussed in the brainstorming section
previous and decided on the following design:
MATERIAL LENGTH (mm) WIDTH (mm) HEIGHT (mm)
Sheet of balsa wood 450 75 1.5
2 rods of balsa 900 6.5 6.5
4 rods of balsa 900 3 3
7. This design required some adaptions to be made the base materials in order to create the
design. The following cutting list shows the dimensions of the materials we used:
Cutting list
MATERIAL COLOUR LENGTH (mm) WIDTH (mm) HEIGHT (mm)
Sheet of balsa wood RED 450 75 1.5
4 rods of balsa BLUE 450 6.5 6.5
6 rods of balsa GREEN 438 3 3
8 rods of balsa PURPLE 62 3 3
12 rods of balsa ORANGE 26.5 3 3
Note the following sketch shows where which materials from the
cutting list are in the design of the beam. They are colour coded
The following sketches give an in depth view on our design and the dimensions
required to replicate the design. These sketches will then be referred to in
order to explain the reasoning behind the design.
10. Principle behind the design
As a team we decided to leave the sheet of balsa unchanged and
implemented ideas to strengthen the sheet as our central piece. The
only decision left for the sheet of balsa was whether to design it to lay
flat or to design an I-beam structure where the sheet would be
upright. We chose an upright position, proposing that a force pushing
down on 75mm of balsa would cause less of a deflection compared to
1.5mm of balsa laid flat.
Next was strengthening the upright I-beam structure using the square
rods. We decided to border to I-beam using the 6.5x6.5 to border top
and bottom of the 450mm length of balsa sheet. These were the
thickest rods we had and used them on what we thought was the
most important part of the sheet, strengthening where the deflection
would occur.
We then completed the border using 3x3mm rods paired together,
using 8 rods to complete the border. These were used to create a rigid
barrier between the 6.5x6.5mm rod borders on the top and bottom.
We then used the 3x3mm rods to line the centre of the balsa sheet.
Although the force would tend to deflect the I-beam downwards, we
were concerned enough force could cause the sheet to bulge
outwards/inwards and potentially snap (left). We noticed there was
approximately a 75mm area that could flex under pressure, hence by
combining three 3x3mm rods and lining the centre of the sheet we
halved the potential area where the sheet could flex inwards/outwards.
Finally we used the remainder of the 3x3mm rods to further
strengthen the border and centre linings. These rods had a dual
purpose, where they strengthened the border, reducing a downward
deflection, but it also strengthened the sheet from flexing inward or
outwards.
Therefore the principal and method behind the design is shown above. In summary our goal was to
strengthen the central balsa sheet by creating a border to prevent downward deflection from the
force, while lining the centre of the sheet was aimed at preventing any unwanted flexing
inwards/outwards from the sheet potentially causing a break in the sheet. Note: all the above
diagrams are exactly the same on the opposite side of the balsa sheet.
11. Results
After compiling all the data from the experiment it can be noted that the experiment can be
achieved, in other words the idea of creating a beam that must deflect within a limit is possible, it is
important to note that most beams weren’t able to deflect within the limits but none broke due to
the force. This was a difficult task as the wood seemed extremely fragile but by creating a way to
disperse the force it was able to prevent it from breaking, this was achieved by exploring the
different ways to build a beam out of balsa wood.
From the table it can be confirmed that 3 out of 9 beams were able to meet the criteria. Two of the
beams were I shaped (teams B and F) and had reinforcements in the middle where the pressure was
applied, in addition groups B and E used support that went from end to end in the horizontal
direction of the beam in the approximate middle. These 3 designs are simple and could easily be
replicated. Both groups E and F were able to reach a deflection of 1.6 mm while group B, the one
that had a mix of the characteristics, had a deflection on 1.1 mm. Due to variation in volume and
amount of materials used there isn’t much to connect with the success of the beams.
12. The issue to take into account is that we did not have much experience with the construction of
beams and/or working with the material given to make them. Most of the designs were based from
encounters in real life, the famous I-beams from construction of buildings, support beams of
buildings and bridges. I believe the main source of failure was the flexibility of the material as it
meant we had to find a way to make it more rigid, this probably lead to over enforcing the materials,
this theory is shown as 4 out of the 9 beams were below the 1mm line. It can come to the conclusion
that the teams that met the criteria either had already done a similar experiment, had experience
with the material or were lucky in the design process.
It is important to note the two teams D and I had a deflection above measurable, this could be due
their designs improving the flexibility of the material and preventing it from breaking. The designs
resembled bridges and helped prove that the way they are built is to increase flexibility of the
material but due to the difference in rigidness of the materials used it can be seen that balsa wood
does not need to increase its flexibility but it rigidness, opposite to concrete and steel (common
materials used to build bridges). In conclusion the failure of the beams was the use of a concept that
was opposite to the objective.
It can be concluded that comparing the results to our group that we were able to increase the
resistance of our beam by reinforcing it in a way that the force applied was dissipated throughout
the beam, this was only accomplished by the fact that one of us already had experience with balsa
wood and that we used a famous design when it comes to beams, the I-beam mostly used in
construction. Analysing the results we can come to a conclusion that we now know beam models
that work or don’t work and why. It can be expected that if the experiment was repeated teams A, C,
G and H will try to make their beams more flexible, teams B, E and F would try to maintain their
deflection but try to make their beams less resource demanding and finally teams I and D would do
their best to develop a more rigid design.
13. Reflection
Fabrication and design of the beam
Overall the fabrication and design of our beam can be described as simple and effective. We
focussed our design around stabilising the central sheet of balsa wood. The sheet had no
modifications to it, allowing more time and effort to be made into strengthening the beam.
Design
The method and understanding to our chosen design is well explained in both the brainstorming and
beam design section of the report.
How to improve designing in the second attempt?
- From a design aspect, a major change we can make is the amount of materials used.
We basically used all the materials allowed however in engineering often resources
used are scarce and/or expensive and should be limited. Our results showed we
could allow for more deformation, meaning fewer materials could be used, saving
money on materials.
- Secondly, a major flaw in our design was the fact we made no adaptations to the
sheet of balsa. In a second attempt, by making the sheet smaller, it will create a
more rigid structure, which would require less square rods to strengthen the
structure. This would essentially mean we could use even fewer materials saving
cost and ultimately ensuring a simpler design. It was evident in the teams that did
alter their balsa sheets that they required fewer materials as shown by the volume
of materials used. However, some of these teams built a structure that was too rigid,
not allowing for any deformation, which didn’t meet specifications.
- In our second attempt our goal is to use less materials while maintaining a beam that
is rigid enough to still deform within the specifications
Fabrication
Our team worked very effectively during the fabrication, we each had roles. Jake was in charge of
measuring cutting lengths and ensuring we used the correct materials. Leo was in charge of cutting
the materials to the right size/shape. Finally the role of gluing the materials to the balsa sheet to add
rigidity was left in charge to Beau. This effective delegation of roles allowed for a very quick
fabrication process allowing more time to be spent on the previous design stage which in
engineering is extremely important, as a design can save time and money on materials and building
costs.
Overall the fabrication process was very efficient and effective; however there were some parts we
had issues with. Gluing was a very precise objective which required patience and took up some time.
It was difficult to accurately apply glue to such small pieces of material. The glue bottle was also
quite unpredictable, occasionally releasing large amounts of glue. Also, measuring and cutting some
14. of the smaller rods for extra support was difficult for accuracy reasons, requiring time and precise
measurements and cutting with limited materials. Aside from these factors, the beam came together
nicely, the glue dried quickly and the beam successfully became more rigid and strong.
How to improve fabrication techniques in the second attempt?
- Major design changes will be employed in the second attempt, mainly aiming at
using fewer materials. In this case, less fabrication will be required. In essence, less
time will be spent on fabricating smaller rods to add rigidity as less pieces will be
used enforce the structure.
- The gluing will also be reduced with a new design, however, hopefully with practice,
handling the glue in the second attempt will have improved.
Performance of the beam relative to other groups
Two major criteria had to be met in this experiment. One, only a certain amount of materials were
allowed to be used. Every team met this specification, using the maximum allowance or less. The
second criterion was that the beam had to flex at least 1mm but no more than 6.5mm. Only 3 teams
were able to meet this criterion. 6 teams failed to meet this criterion, 4 not deforming enough and 2
deforming too much. Seeing as though a large group built the beam too strong, it is likely people
misunderstood the criteria.
Our group was one of three to meet all of the criteria set out. Unlike the other two that met the
criteria (both having a deflection of 1.6mm) ours barely made it with a deflection of 1.1mm, this
could be due to the very rigid nature of our design, which included support along the interior of the
beam and that the pressure was applied intersecting the grain of the wood. The support along the
outside did not allow the beam to bend too much to the sides, while making sure the pressure being
applied intersected the grain which was a way to apply pressure to a not so flexible part of the
wood. The other teams that met the criteria also had a lower volume of materials used suggesting
our beam, although it met the criteria, could definitely have improved in design.
Understanding of beam behaviour
(Hagen, 2014) defines a force as: ‘an influence that causes a body to deform or accelerate’. In this
task our beam was to be influenced by a contact force which would potentially cause deformation
and our goal was to prevent excessive deformation (>6.5mm) but allow for some (>1mm). This is a
case of deformable-body mechanics which we aimed for our beam to act elastically; returning to its
original shape after the force was removed.
Our team set out to gain an understanding of beam behaviour and the strength and integrity of the
materials we were using to create a design that would meet specifications.
Knowledge of beams prior to the experiment
15. Our team naturally set out the design and fabrication through instinct. There was a lack of
mathematical reasoning or particular engineering principles applied. In saying that, our common
sense did display many principles of engineering and mathematics we simply didn’t realise exactly
what concepts they were. We realised that a beam has to be rigid, preventing a force from
deforming it substantially. We realised that by adding the square rods of balsa to the thin balsa
sheet we could improve rigidity. We set out to create a design which would create a rigid beam that
would hold the force. We knew that a beam has a purpose, which is to hold a force. We didn’t have
to allow for any other purposes, hence the shape of our design was only limited to the dimensional
limitations.
Knowledge gained during the exercise
By examining the materials during fabrication and by closely examining the affect the force had on
our beam, particularly important knowledge was gained. Firstly our understanding of the strength of
balsa improved by getting a feel for the material and predicting how a force would influence it. We
gained a simple understanding on how to cut, glue and fabricate a simple wooden design. After
witnessing the force deform the beam and observing other team’s results, we gained a better
understanding of how much force the beam can withstand as well as effective designs that showed
greater strength and rigidity
Gaps identified?
As a group we all fell short in applying mathematical reasoning to our planning and relied on
common sense/instinct to drive our design. We also used a large amount of materials in our beam
which was a case of overcompensation, ensuring our beam was extremely rigid, with no weak spots
present. Hence, we simply used to much material and need to use less in order to realise the
importance of design and saving money.
How to improve
As a group, with some new learning and a greater understanding of engineering calculations and
formulae we will need to apply this knowledge to our beam. Instead of guessing and assuming the
effect of forces and the strength of material we should be able to apply actual numerical calculations
and literature understanding to both the influence of forces and the strength and rigidity of the
material.
We will also attempt to use fewer materials, by improving our design. Minimising material use is an
extremely important skill in real world engineering potentially saving large amounts of money.
Research on beam behaviour and materials
Material – Balsa wood
- An important property for this exercise is the modulus of elasticity which is defined
by (The Wood Database, 2012) as: ‘a wood’s stiffness … a good overall indicator of its
strength’. Balsa has an elastic modulus of approx. 3.76 GPa, which compares to
Hickory (a very strong wood) approx. 14.9 GPa and low density polyethylene (a weak
and flexible plastic) approx. 0.3 GPa. Hence, Balsa isn’t extremely rigid; however, it
16. has some potential to hold a static load, maintaining the advantages of being cheap
and lightweight.
- Density varies for balsa, but it is generally accepted as having a low density due to
large pores in its internal build up. It is generally very light and soft due to its grain
structure and low density however this has seen it used primarily for any objects
requiring buoyancy i.e. rafts and surfboards
- Balsa is very effective at insulating heat, vibration and sound
Beams – Purpose of a beam and how it works
- (Wikipedia, 2014) states: ‘a beam is a structural element that is capable of
withstanding load primarily by resisting bending’. Often a beam will have a bending
moment which it has to resist. The strength and rigidity of the beam prevents
excessive deformation.
- Generally a beam assists in holding a structure upright; it is required to strengthen a
structure. Hence it does not need to look elegant or be designed for anything
specific; rather it is a simple but very strong and effective part of a structure which
assists in maintaining its integrity.
What research/literature did you do/read?
A helpful source of literature was found in the introduction to engineering analysis text book by Kirk
D. Hagen. Chapter 4 on mechanics provided helpful insight into the different types of forces and how
they affect a body. This knowledge will be helpful in the second attempt as we will be able to apply
theoretical and mathematical knowledge of how forces work into our beam design.
Several internet sites mentioned in the references were helpful in describing the purpose of beams
as well as provide information of balsa wood.
Team decision making
The way we came up with our final design was as a group. Our decision-making was collective and
constructive. Each person would explain their outlook on the design and where they considered
there were pros and cons and stressed this to the team. As a team we all focussed on a simple
design and began to explore variations and improvements to create a more complex and effective
design. Our ideas were heard and evaluated and overall we were easily able to agree on our
collaborated ideas. This resulted in a successful final design which we all agreed with. This cohesion
allowed us all to work together towards a single goal we were all content with which translated into
a determined and successful fabrication process.
Where we succeeded
- Everyone presented ideas and no one dominated discussion
- There were no major disagreements
17. - We collectively worked together and aimed to produce a design we all agreed upon
Where we can improve
- As a team we struggled to think broadly/outside the box. There was a sense of no
one wanting to be overly creative; rather we wanted a simple and effective design
that may not have been the best possible design.
- We had a lack of variety with designs as we stuck to an I-beam structure in all
designs and I think we would have benefited from a broader range of options. Once
a general agreement was decided on the quality an I-beam design would provide we
focused on I-beam designs. This ultimately restricted other possible designs.
- The I-beam thinking caused our team to not notice other design opportunities,
namely altering the balsa sheet which seemed to disadvantage our design’s strength
and integrity.
- To improve next time, our team should be more comfortable discussing more
creative ideas and not being afraid of the idea failing. We should think outside the
box and look at all avenues however farfetched they may seem.
18. Mapping
of
learning
outcomes
Learning Outcomes covered How it applied to our team
i. Describe the role of abstraction, simplification
and the use of assumptions and mathematical
relationships in solving problems encountered by
engineers
The balsa experiment was similar to a real-world
problem engineer’s encounter. Without much
background knowledge we relied upon
simplifying the problem to the essential issues
and made assumptions on forces and the
strength of the materials to help with our
planning/design. This outcome was addressed
well.
iii. Analyse simple engineering problems using
the fundamental laws of nature, particularly
conservation and continuity laws, Newton’s
laws.
The balsa beam was a simple problem that our
team thoroughly analysed. We were limited to a
basic understanding of the fundamental laws of
nature however this knowledge had a large
influence on the project. Newton’s laws, the
effect of gravity and the effect a force can have
on a material influenced our thinking. With an
improved knowledge of the fundamental laws of
nature and how to apply them both theoretically
and mathematically. As a result this outcome can
be addressed better in the future.
v. Undertake and present engineering
calculations in a professional manner using given
formulae.
Simple measurements and volume calculations
were used in this task, being presented
professionally. However, only simple calculations
were shown due to the limited knowledge of
engineering formulae/calculations. As a group
we hope to address this outcome more
successfully in the future
vii. Demonstrate self-directed learning related to
solving problems in one or more engineering
disciplines.
As a team, roles were assigned and were
independently worked on and achieved.
Individual roles in both report writing and
fabrication increased the productivity of the
group, allowing our individual work to then be
combined for a good end result. Our team
successfully achieved this outcome.
viii. Reflect on the various roles taken up in
teams and the general formal processes required
to promote team performance
Our team successfully communicated and
assigned roles. We each had a clear
understanding of what we had to provide for the
group. Constant communication on social
networking to share ideas as well as discussions
in class and team meetings proved to be
extremely helpful in team performance while
increasing each other’s trust and teamwork
which will prove extremely helpful in future
tasks. Our team addressed this outcome very
well
19. Conclusion
Our team entered this task as strangers with varying strengths and weaknesses. We collectively had
limited knowledge on theoretical and mathematical engineering processes and relied on common
sense and assumptions/estimations to drive our project. Our team immediately connected well and
set about delegating roles and having healthy discussions were agreements was easy to come by.
Our team was successful in communicating and working together. Our brainstorming session was
well addressed, coming up with 3 designs, each one discussed and challenged, eventually coming to
a unanimous agreement on the best design. We effectively delegated roles in the fabrication process
where each team member gained experience with the materials and worked together to create a
rigid beam structure. We communicated and assisted each other positively. We also learnt skills in
time management and maximising limited materials in a design process.
For the project, our design and fabrication was very successful. We met the criteria, using 159 075
mm³ of materials and our beam deflected 1.1mm under the 2.5kg load (24.5 N). Our estimations and
common sense prevailed in creating a design that met the criteria, suggesting we had a skill in
problem solving as a team. However this task was not easy, as only 3 of 9 teams met the criteria
suggesting, overall most groups did make assumptions/estimations but ultimately didn’t make the
right ones.
The report writing was successfully completed, roles were shared, and meetings were convened and
effectively communicated as to who needed to do what and how they would do it. Overall the team
combined to successfully design a beam and create a report through solid teamwork and clear
communication skills.
References
Hagen, K. D. 2014. Introduction to engineering analysis. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
The Wood Database. 2009. Balsa | The Wood Database - Lumber Identification
(Hardwoods). [online] Available at: http://www.wood-database.com/lumber-
identification/hardwoods/balsa/ [Accessed: 7 Mar 2014].
The Wood Database. 2012. Modulus of Elasticity | The Wood Database. [online]
Available at: http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/modulus-of-elasticity/
[Accessed: 9 Mar 2014].
Wikipedia. 2014. Beam (structure). [online] Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_(structure) [Accessed: 9 Mar 2014].
Wheway, B. 2014. A Guide to Writing an Engineering Report. [e-book]
https://eis.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@eng/documents/doc/uow0
61327.pdf [Accessed: 12 Mar 2014].
20. Appendices
Minutes
Meeting report
Job No. :
Page 1 of 2
Report date: 12/03/2014
Prepared by: L Cordebello
Project:
Balsa Beam
Contract Ref. : N/A
Purpose:
Division of writing for report
Internal
Place:
UniBar
Meeting Date: 04/03/2014
Attendance:
Name: Position: Company: UOW
Leonardo Cordebello Student
Beaumont Proudfoot Student
Jake Ashley Student
Minutes issued to:
All attendees
AGENDA/SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
Item Subject Action date
1
2
3
4
Share contact information:
Shared Facebook, email and mobile
number
Analysis of strengths and weakness:
Talked about what we were good at
and what were we can improve
Division of writing:
Analysis of results
Brainstorming
Description + 3D model
Reflections
Plan next meeting: meet in library on Monday
10th
of march to gather work and finalise roles
required to finish report
L.C./B.P./J.A.
B.P./L.C./J.A.
L.C.
B.P.
J.A.
L.C./J.A./B.P.
04/03/2014
04/03/2014
10/03/2014
08/03/2014
09/03/2014
11/03/2014
21. Meeting report
Job No. :
Page 2 of 2
Report date: 12/03/2014
Prepared by: L Cordebello
Project:
Balsa Beam
Contract Ref. : N/A
Purpose:
Revision of part of report
Internal
Place:
UniBar
Meeting Date: 10/03/2014
Attendance:
Name: Position: Company: UOW
Leonardo Cordebello Student
Beaumont Proudfoot Student
Jake Ashley Student
Minutes issued to:
All attendees
AGENDA/SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
Item Subject Action date
1
2
3
Gather assigned work
Decide what else needs to be done
Division of writing:
More on results + meeting report
Assessment cover and statement of
purpose
Learning outcomes, conclusion and
finalising report
L.C.
B.P.
J.A.
L.C.
B.P.
J.A.
L.C.
B.P.
J.A.
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
