Assignment Abstract

In this assignment, I analyzed through compare and contrast the structural layout of two published research labs. As provided by the textbook, the default layout of a lab report includes 8 elements: title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. Not all lab reports, however, follow this format. My job was to see where the research labs veered off from the default format and provide reasons why they might have done so. The essay is broken down into 8 sections correlating to the 8 elements. In each section, I compare and contrast how the authors of the two lab reports wrote their specific lab report element and explain why they decided to make the changes they did based on their goals.

The Lab Reports

The scientific method is by far the best method we humans have to continually get closer and closer to the truth. If you want your findings to advance an area of science; however, you need to share those findings with others in the field. This process of sharing your findings involves creating a detailed document known as a lab report that encapsulates the entire research process from its significance and inception to the implications of the discoveries. Lab reports generally follow a similar format consisting of eight components which include: title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.  Depending on the specific purpose of the lab report, some lab reports may choose to deviate from this traditional format. This paper will analyze through compare and contrast the format of two lab reports based on the eight components and give reasons as to why the authors may have decided to make the changes they did in their respective papers. One of these lab reports called “An origami-inspired structure with graded stiffness” written by Jiayao Ma, Jichao Song, and Yan Chen examines the structural integrity of various origami layouts through physical testing. The researchers ultimately come up with a new origami-based design much stronger than previous designs. The other lab report called “A plastic-damage model for concrete under compression” written by A. Sarikaya and R.E. Erkmen creates a new, more efficient mathematical model for simulating the result of compression forces on concrete. The fundamental difference between the purposes of these papers will result in many of the differences below.

Title

Compared to some of the more traditional titles for research papers, both articles contain short titles with simple sentence structures and simple vocabulary. While most other research articles incorporate jargon terms to thoroughly explain the contents of their papers, these articles do not. Even though the language in them might not seem complex, both titles entail what the research papers will be about. Sarikaya and Erkmen introduce a new mathematical model that simulates the elasticity and plasticity of concrete under compression forces and is aptly named “A plastic-damage model for concrete under compression.” Every word in the title is important and no time is wasted in getting to the point; in other words, the title is very efficient at delivering information. Phrases such as “plastic-damage model” and “concrete under compression” are good key phrases that make it easier for others to find the article through search engines. Ma et al.’s title is very similar. Their paper proposes a new type of structure based on origami models that is more efficient at energy absorption, and it is called “An origami-inspired structure with graded stiffness.” Just like with Sarikaya and Erkmen, Ma et al. provide a very efficient title that uses simple sentence structure to deliver its information. Furthermore, it also uses important key words and phrases such as “origami”, “structure”, and “graded stiffness” that help search engines display the information for potential readers. While both articles share the strength of simplicity in their titles, this strength comes with a weakness. The titles only serve to provide a surface-level description of their papers without much detail. This is especially clear when Sarikaya and Erkmen discuss previous research in their field because every paper they talk about entails “a plastic-damage model for concrete under compression”. To differentiate their paper from previous research to potential readers, the authors should include phrases that highlight the uniqueness of the paper such as “partitioning of straing tensors” and “computational efficiency”. These phrases would provide more context to the titles. The tradeoff here is clear. By using simple language, authors create an attractive, straight to the point title; however, in doing so, the authors must rely on the abstract to give more context.

Abstract

When it comes to the abstract, there is one key difference between the two articles. The abstract is, in essence, supposed to be a mini lab report which discusses the introduction, methods, results, and conclusions in summary forms. Both of the two articles are effective in doing so in their own way.  Ma et al. begin their abstract with an introduction on origami-inspired structures and then go on to explain how they will advance this field. They specifically state that while origami structures are usually made of repeating patterns with uniform structural and mechanical behavior, the Muira-ori origami that they will be studying has a varying pattern. After explaining the significance of the research, Ma et al. go into their methods and discuss how kinematic analysis was used to analyze the various origami structures. Then, the abstract goes into the discovery of a Muira-ori origami-based structure that is superior to previous uniform structures with higher energy absorption efficiency. Lastly, not only does the abstract explain the results of the research, it also states how these results can be applied to other structures to improve their mechanical properties.

While Ma et al. use a more traditional format of the abstract, Sarikaya and Erkmen do not. They begin in a similar way by introducing the concept of the paper and putting the research the paper does in context with previous research. The abstract mentions previous phenomenological elastoplastic-damage models and the benefits that they provide in simulating both concrete deformations and degradations. The difference between the two articles comes in this next part. While Ma et al. go into the methods by which they gathered their data, Sarikaya and Erkmen go straight into the results and applications. They state how the new plastic-damage model simplifies the mathematics of previous models and can be easily applied to a variety of situations. Regarding methods, all they say is that the “numerical implementation is explained”. The reason why Sarikaya and Erkmen do not go into so much detail regarding the methods in the abstract is due in large part to the nature of their paper. Unlike Ma et al.’s, Sarikaya and Erkmen’s research does not consist of experimentally gathered data. Instead, a mathematical model is built upon and the results it predicts are compared to previously determined real-life results. The authors decided not to explain the methods as the mathematical proof cannot be put into words in one or two sentences. The abstract did its job though; it gave enough information about the contents of the research paper for the reader to decide whether or not they want to read the paper.

Introduction

The introductions of the two research papers follow the same format despite fundamental differences in the nature of the papers; the authors provide thorough context to show the significance of their research. Both articles begin by giving a thorough history of research in their respective topics. Sarikaya and Erkmen in particular mentioned a multitude of previous research and various efforts to successfully incorporate plasticity and damage models into one unified model. This is important because their paper will demonstrate how their mathematical model was developed. As a result, they need to show where they took inspiration from and how their research builds upon previous research. Sarikaya and Erkmen also clearly state that their research will depart from previous models “in order to provide a simpler and more efficient computational framework”. The introduction ends with an outline of the paper to guide the reader to potential areas of interest. Ma et al. also provide previous research as context, but not as thoroughly as Sarakaya and Erkmen. Ma et al. mostly provide context to show that work on the area of origami-inspired structures has only pertained to rigid foldable designs as opposed to their flexible foldable designs. This is very important as it differentiates their research from others’ research and thus gives their work greater significance. After summarizing previous work in the area, the article discusses how these origami structures can benefit from graded stiffness and proceeds to give examples how graded stiffness can be incorporated in various industries. Just like with Sarikaya and Erkmen, it’s only after the proper context has been laid, that the article mentions the true objective of the paper which is to design geometrically varied Muira-ori origami designs with graded stiffness and high energy absorptions. In both articles, the significance of the research is left for the end in order to highlight the difference between the current research and past research.

It is important to notice that Ma et al. emphasize the benefits of their research much more than Sarikaya and Erkman who focus more on providing context for the conception of their idea. Sarikaya and Erkman’s work is very dependent on previous mathematical models, so it is important for them to provide clarity on why and how their work differs and how it will improve previous models. Ma et al. discovered a completely new origami-inspired object that displays graded stiffness and thus must emphasize how this design and graded stiffness in general can benefit various industries.

Materials and Methods

The material and methods section describes the way in which the hypothesis was tested and the resources that were needed in this process. The major difference between the two articles when it comes to the materials and methods is the way in which the information is presented. Sarikaya and Erkmen split the methods and materials in three sections, although these sections are not collectively labeled as the methods and materials. The first section provides their hypothesis which is an additive equation that involves three terms: the elastic part, the plastic part, and the damage part. While the hypothesis is usually given in the introduction, Sarikaya and Erkmen decided to place it in this section because the proof of the hypothesis is really the methods of research paper. The first section goes into explaining each term of the equation. The second section explains how the equations were remodeled into an algorithm that can be entered into computer simulations. The third section discusses specificities of concrete such as hardening effects that were also considered in the equation. Each equation in the section is numbered to make it easier to recall it and show how it substitutes or transforms into other terms. In addition to equations, graphs are also used to show relationships between variables. The whole methods section is written in such a way as to show how the eventual mathematical model was built step-by-step as various variables were considered.  

While the methods section of Sarikaya and Erkmen is almost entirely based on equations, the methods section of Ma et al. relies more heavily on images. Although both sections have equations, Ma et al. support their equations with origami images from the start. This is different from Sarikaya and Erkmen’s paper where the equations were standing on their own. The methods and materials section here is split into two subsections. In the first section the article talks about the mathematics behind the geometry of the origami and in the second section it talks about how the origami shapes were created and tested. This is where the second major difference reveals itself. Since Sarikaya and Erkmen’s methods consist of coming up with a mathematical equation, they do not have a materials sections other than previous research used. Ma et al.’s research, however, involves the testing of real physical objects and, as such, it includes how these objects were manufactured. It specifically mentions that the origamis structures were created using injection molding and tested through vertical physical compression. Overall, the materials and methods sections of the two lab reports again show how the purpose of the lab report will affect the format.

Results

The results section is where the authors display the data gathered in the experiments. This is yet another section that differs greatly between the two articles. As stated before, Sarikaya and Erkmen do not conduct any physical testing of their own. Instead, they compare the predictions of their unified equation to previous experimentally determined results of other researchers. This verification of their equation is essentially their results section. Figures 2 and 3 of section 5 show how the predictions measure up with the experiments via two stress-strain vs displacement graphs. In this section, the author simply states that the predicted results are “in perfect agreement” with the experimental data.

In Ma et al.’s paper, the result section is much longer and more thorough. It consists of three subsections in which the authors examine how different structures react to the compression forces, how the sector angle affected compression levels, and how the order of layer stacking affected displacement. The article states that model 42-54-50-60 with “four-level graded stiffness” proved to be the most effective structure. Ma et al. end the result section by concluding that further research is needed to investigate the “relationship between stacking order and the mechanical properties of the structure”.

            It is important to realize that the results section is more important for Ma et al. than for Sarikaya and Erkmen. Ma et al. performed a variety of experiments that examined how layer stacking, sector angles, and force magnitudes affected structures. A thorough experimental procedure thus required a thorough explanation of the results. For Sarikaya and Erkmen, the method by which their formula operates is much more important as it gives insight into the computational efficiency and accuracy. After all, this is what other researchers will focus on when they apply their formula to their scenarios. They do not spend as much time on the results section as it does not provide more insight into their work; the results section is just there to verify the accuracy of their formula which was already explained by their proof.

Discussion

The discussion section of a lab report differs from the results section as while the result section only displays the data gathered, the discussion section interprets the meaning behind the data. What is immediately obvious upon reading the two lab reports is that there are no discussion sections. This is not to say that the authors did not interpret the data, but that they did not separate their discussion and interpretations of the data from the empirical data itself. For example, Ma et al. gave several graphs in Figure 5 in their results section and then interpreted the meaning behind the graphs in the text below in the same section.

The reason why both authors decided to merge the discussion and results section into one section might have to do with the flow of information. Since Sarikaya and Erkmen do not have a ton of empirical data, it makes sense for them to mention the data and then interpret it in the same section. This makes the paper easier to read and allows the author to show relationships within the data more easily. The same can be said for Ma et al. Because their paper consisted of several experiments, it makes sense for them to have a section for each experiment where they both display and interpret the data. Merging the results and discussion sections, however, does come with a negative side effect. If readers want to just look at the empirical data of the study, they need to sift through a lot of interpretation text. In the traditional format of the lab report, readers can just go the result section for data and the discussion section for interpretation. In conclusion, to perhaps achieve better flow of information, Ma et al. and Sarikaya and Erkmen merged the discussion and results section into one.

Conclusion

The conclusion is a final summary of the results and implications of the paper. Both research articles have an effective conclusion. Ma et al. summarize the discovery of their new origami model capable of achieving four-level graded stiffness and higher energy absorption. In addition, they reemphasize the importance of their work by stating that their geometric design creates a new path for the origami-based structural design and mechanical metamaterials. Sarikaya and Erkmen restate the purpose of their plastic-damage mathematical model of concrete and describe the strengths of the model including reduced iteration. The author reaffirms to the reader the validity of the model by repeating how the model mirrored experimental results perfectly. Lastly, just like Ma et al., Sarikaya and Erkmen end by emphasizing the importance of their work in the field by saying that their model of concrete deformation and degradation is “computationally more efficient” than previous models. The major difference here is that Sarikaya and Erkmen emphasize an improved mathematical model while Ma et al. emphasize their new discovered origami-based structure.

References

Both Sarikaya and Erkmen and Ma et al. cite and reference a multitude of outside sources to support their work and provide historical context of research in their respective fields. These references provide further reading for those who wish to explore these fields to greater lengths.

In conclusion, the purpose of a lab report is one of key determinants when it comes to format. If your purpose is to experimentally discover a new object like in the case of Ma et al., then you need to thoroughly describe these experiments and show greater emphasis in the materials and results section. On the other hand, if your purpose is to come up with a new mathematical model like in the case of Sarikaya and Erkmen, then you need to thoroughly explain the proof behind the model and show greater emphasis in the methods section. Without understanding the purpose of the lab report and molding the traditional lab format around this purpose, it difficult for a person to create a document that displays their research in an equally convincing and clear way. 

Self Reflection

Acknowledge your and others’ range of linguistic differences as resources, and draw on those resources to develop rhetorical sensibility.

When writing this paper, I did take some liberties in my sentence structure and writing style. Since this was a rhetorical analysis involving compare and contrast, I did use some more complex sentence structures and longer sentences. I understand, however, that this makes my writing harder to understand for those whose first language is not English.

Enhance strategies for reading, drafting, revising, editing, and self-assessment.

To enhance the reading process, I made sure to use a lot of chunking. I chunked information into paragraphs based on each of the eight lab report components. Using paragraphs makes the information less overwhelming and allows the reader to jump around to different areas without losing track of where they are. When it came to drafting my essay, my goal was first to understand at the very least on surface level what the two research articles were talking about. This would make the comparison and contrast between the two articles much more easier. Understanding the articles, however, was a major issue due to the technical vocabulary and information.

Develop and engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.

The class peer-review was pretty helpful in revising my paper. Getting a different perspective helps you see the paper from someone else’s point of view. In one instance, my partner mentioned that I contradicted myself saying first that both papers had effective titles and later that the titles failed to provide specifics. I hadn’t noticed this on my own, but when my partner mentioned it, it was crystal clear.

Engage in genre analysis and multimodal composing to explore effective writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond.

Since this paper was a rhetorical analysis, there wasn’t much multimodal composing. It was mostly just text that simply referenced other text and occasionally graphs and tables. Most of the composing was just separating the paper into sections to make it more readable.

Formulate and articulate a stance through and in your writing.

For this paper in particular, it was not necessary to form a stance as it was analyzing two lab reports. My job was to highlight differences and similarities in the format between the two papers and provide reasoning behind these similarities and differences. Although not necessary, I did unintentionally develop a stance throughout the paper. My stance was that the purpose of the lab report affects the way in which the lab report must be formatted. This stance was developed gradually as I noticed that more and more changes between the two lab reports coincided with the fundamental difference in purpose between them. 

Practice using various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources appropriate to your writing projects.

All of the sources I used in this paper were online sources. I first did a general google search to see available research papers in the area of mechanical engineering. The major challenge I encountered was that most research papers were upwards of 20 pages long. I realized that trying to analyze two 20 page research papers would be very difficult considering the large amount of information. As a result, my goal was to find short research papers which I did find through the Elsevier publishing company.

Strengthen your source use practices (including evaluating, integrating, quoting, paraphrasing, summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and citing sources)

Throughout the essay, I used a lot of paraphrasing and occasionally quotation to include information from the two lab reports. This was important as it set the context for me to explain why the authors chose to format their lab reports the way they did. Citing sources, however, was not necessary since the two lab reports are included with the paper. If the reader wants to find these sources online, he/she can use the physical copy attached to do so.