Lab Report Analysis
Jana Elwassif
Department of English, City College of New York
ENGL 21007: Writing for Engineering
Professor Sara Jacobson
October 20, 2022
Lab reports often follow a general structure of a title, abstract, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion to display scientific findings effectively and convincingly to the readers. However, scientists can stray away from this structure, or add on to it, if it will better display their information. Through comparing the lab reports “Design and analysis of magnetorheological damper-based ankle-foot prosthesis prototype” and “A feasibility analysis of a 3D customized upper limb orthosis,” the reasoning behind structural decisions can be examined. The lab report “Design and analysis of magnetorheological damper-based ankle-foot prosthesis prototype” presents a prototype that uses a specific design (magnetorheological damper technology MR damper-based technology) to address prosthetic issues in adapting to different terrains. It analyzes the safety of the prototype to determine its potential in practice. This article will be referred to as Article 1. The lab report “A feasibility analysis of a 3D customized upper limb orthosis,” explores the benefits of 3D printing customized upper limb braces. It presents a time cost analysis to answer the question: is this method is feasible and practical within the medical field? This article will be referred to as Article 2. Both articles generally follow the traditional structure of a lab report, however, at time do stray away from the structure and from each other due to the different experiments that they are presenting.
The articles begin their reports with effective, informative, and straightforward titles. While the title in Article 2 is shorter than the title in Article 1, they both establish what the researchers aim to do within the article, giving readers a general idea of what the article is about. Article 2’s title includes the keywords “feasibility analysis,” telling readers that this report will analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of a specific procedure, in this case 3D customized upper limb braces (Sala et al., 2022). Similarly, Article 1 includes the keywords “design and analysis of… prosthesis prototype,” clearly telling readers that the report will include a design and detailed information on the effectiveness of a specific prototype (Negi et al., 2021). They both include information that informs the reader what specific aspect of engineering the report will on. Both articles avoid using abbreviations, to ensure that their titles are well understood, even by readers who are not familiar with the research being done. By doing so, they effectively give readers a general idea of what the report will entail and are informative to readers who have not read the article yet, helping them to determine if the research is relevant to their studies.
Abstracts are used in both lab reports to summarize the significance, methods, and results of the report, even though the structure of the abstracts differ between the reports. Article 1 contains subheadings for the purpose, methodology, findings, and value. By dividing the abstract into subheadings, the information is more clear to readers. It also makes it easier to understand the information being presented and how it connects to the entire article. However, Article 2 displays the information in a single paragraph, like the traditional structure of abstracts. This is done to easily transition the information easily, unifying the ideas for the reader. Article 1 provides little background information in the value section, while Article 2 establishes background information to transition into the significance of finding a new method for 3D printed orthosis. The author of Article 1 did not include this background information because they might have assumed that the audience of his report already understand the value of prosthesis research and is someone within the field. Article 1 also includes specific values in the findings section of the abstract, stating that “the prosthetic foot has a factor of safety values between 4.7 and 8.7”, making it more informative since it specifically presents the findings of the article (Negi et al., 2021). On the other hand, Article 2 only provides a general sentence that merely states that the technique presented is “valid” and “cost effective,” without stating any specific numerical or tangible data within the abstract, making it more descriptive (Sala et al., 2022). This was done to keep the abstract more general and understandable to readers browsing articles, since readers often read the abstract before deciding if the research is useful to them. By stating the results in general terms, readers unfamiliar with the research can easily grasp an understanding of the results. Meanwhile, the specific numerical values in Article 1 do not have any specific meaning to readers that have not read the entire study and therefore are less impactful than the general statements to an audience unfamiliar with this type of research. The author caters to a smaller and more specific audience of engineers. Despite these differences, both abstracts address the significance of their study briefly and concisely describe their methodologies in a similar fashion to give the audience a general idea of what will be discussed.
The introductions are used to provide the needed context to understand the value of the research that will be presented. Both articles clearly state the broader issue that their research aims to address. Article 1 addresses the need to incorporate “active elements in prosthetic feet” to allow people with disabilities to walk in different terrains (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 explains that traditional methods of manufacturing result in orthoses that “are often unsatisfactory in terms of comfort, causing complications… and difficulties in patient adherence to clinical prescription” (Sala et al., 2022). Through this background information, the articles can present their research as significant to the large field of study. After describing previous research that connects to the issues at hand, the two articles explain the deficits with the research being done in their respective fields. Article 1 explains that powered prosthesis “require heavy actuators to supply the necessary propulsion power” (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 explains that the studies that have “successfully addressed these issues… lack a rapid, automated and consistent system for modelling orthosis” (Sala et al., 2022). By establishing the weaknesses with current research, the authors can emphasize why their own research is valuable. They both explain how the study will address these issues. Article 1 stating that the MR technology will provide “stable torque” (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 stating that the technique presented will “provide a standardized and guided procedure” that is customizable, “repeatable and cost-effective” (Sala et al., 2022). This convinces the reader that the research is important. The articles also define necessary acronyms to inform the audience that may be unfamiliar with their research. Article 1 defines the classifications of prosthetic feet the corresponding acronyms (Negi et al., 2021). Similarly, Article 2 states the acronym LTT stands for low temperature thermoplastic (Sala et al., 2022). This ensures that readers that are quickly scanning the introduction can better understand the information being presented in this section and within the rest of the report. Both articles also briefly address the method that they use to meet their goal, with Article 1 referencing outside research to justify the type of technology that will be used in the prototype, helping to convince readers of the validity of this method. The only difference between the two articles is that Article 1 uses statistics in the background information while Article 2 does not. Article 1 explains why better prosthetics are needed using statistics like “in India, lower limb amputations account for 91.7% of traumatic amputations” (Negi et al., 2021). By including statistics, Article 1 creates a greater sense of urgency and significance for their research. It is also important to note that both articles do not state a hypothesis within this section, straying away from traditional lab report structure because it does not fit the type of research that is being conducted. These lab reports are exploratory and are not aiming to find support for a specific idea. They aim to provide information regarding a new device and technique rather than finding evidence against/for already existing theories.
While the articles present this information differently to traditional layouts, the materials and methods sections of the articles overall explain the process taken to conduct the research. In both articles the materials are not mentioned in the beginning. They are embedded into the methodology that is used, due to the nature of the research that these articles are presenting. In these articles, the focus is on the methods that are being used, rather than what materials are being used. Article 1 does this, since the materials make more sense in the context of designing the prosthetic. Since Article 2 is focusing on a technique, embedding the program names within the steps of the manufacturing technique helps the reader to better understand what is being presented. One difference between these sections is that Article 1 begins the section with a brief introduction to explain the subsections that are presented in this section by saying “This section is divided into five subsections…” (Negi et al., 2021). This lets the author organize their ideas and give the reader a better understanding of the information’s presentation. Unlike Article 2, Article 1 also provides information on their test subject, diagrams, tables, and graphs on how the model works (Negi et al., 2021). Meanwhile, Article 2 includes a myriad of equations, while Article 1 does not (Sala et al., 2022). This difference occurs due to the different subject of the articles. Article 1 requires more graphics to clearly explain the design of the device, as well as test subjects to analyze the model’s effectiveness, while Article 2 requires equations to calculate the feasibility of the technique. The difference in what they are testing requires different procedures to get results. Both divide the procedure with subheadings and use pictures relating to the procedure. For example, Article 1 includes a CAD model of the prosthetic protype (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 includes a picture of the 3D rendered cast (Sala et al., 2022). This helps the reader better understand the process, maintaining the research’s replicability factor of the report. Articles 1 and 2 also justify the specific procedure used, however, Article 1 justifies the procedure using other researchers, while Article 2 justifies the procedure with evidence regarding efficiency. For example, Article 1 justifies using the MR fluid because “Nandi et al. (2012) used the MR damper to control an above knee amputee’s knee movement” (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 justifies using Ultimaker Breakaway because “it can be removed easily and manually from the orthosis after the end of the printing process” (Sala et al., 2022). This difference is due to the nature of the research. Since Article 1 wants to create a product that is efficient, it will require support from other research papers. Article 2 aims to create a more efficient technique and will require evidence on why the steps taken are efficient. Article 1 also contains specific conditions for the technology being presented, such as in Table 1, where the MR Damper specifications are stated (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 stated which functions were used such as the smooth mesh function that “enhanced the surface of the model” (Sala et al., 2022). By stating these conditions, and stating all the processes in chronological order, the procure is replicable, which is a vital property of lab reports. Despite the differences that exist, both justifications create the same effect of convincing the reader that their methods are justified and valid for their research.
The data is presented in the results sections of the articles, with analysis of the data embedded within the section. The results and discussion section of the two articles were combined, with Article 1 directly titling the section “Results and discussion,” while Article 2 titling the section “Results” only. Both authors strayed away from the traditional format of having a separate section for the discussion, due to the nature of the research being presented. The articles are not testing out a hypothesis, they are exploratory and aim to defend a technique or a device’s effectiveness. Since they are not seeking out a discovery, they do not need to discuss the results in this manner. Embedding the analysis with the results also helps the reader to better understand the magnitude and meaning of the raw data. Articles 1 and 2 present their data using pictures and tables, such as Article 1 having a table for the “Analysis results for different foot positions” (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 has a table presenting the “Energy parameters and cost” (Sala et al., 2022). This makes the data organized and presents it effectively. With this, readers can easily compare the raw data to better comprehend the analysis and conclusion, helping to make the data more convincing to the reader.
Although both conclusions summarize the work, the articles choose to focus on distinct aspects of the report within this section. Article 1 does not summarize the methodology, while Article 2 does. This occurred because Article 2’s focus is on the methods, since the research is evaluating a technique. The two articles effectively summarize the results. Article 1 states that the “mean yield stress of ANS foot material is almost 35MPa” (Negi et al., 2021). Article 2 states that the estimated cost was “26€” (Sala et al., 2022). By summarizing the results, readers who are reading the article out of order can understand the research better, while also providing them with a reminder of the most important results. The articles do not address a hypothesis, because these articles are not testing out a theory, they are presenting a model or procedure. Article 2 focuses on addressing the next steps through stating “Future works will provide further evidence on the appropriateness in terms of cost, time and mechanical behavior of the proposed medical solution…”, something that traditional formats do not include and something that Article 1 did not include either (Sala et al., 2022). By doing so, it helps to create more significance for their research and convince the reader that this method is something that should continue to be evaluated for effectiveness.
Articles 1 and 2 effectively present their information in a convincing manner, regardless of the differences they entail. They adapt the structure to fit their needs as an engineering lab report, while also presenting their information using a structure that will help the reader better understand, follow, and believe their work. Lab reports can manipulate the traditional format while still maintaining vital portions to make effective and professionally written reports.
References:
Negi, S., Sagar, U., Nautiyal, V. K., & Sharma, N. (2021). Design and analysis of magnetorheological damper based ankle-foot prosthesis prototype. Industrial Robot: the International Journal of Robotics Research and Application, 49(2), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/ir-04-2021-0084
Sala, F., Carminati, M., D’Urso, G., & Giardini, C. (2022). A feasibility analysis of a 3D customized upper limb orthosis. Procedia CIRP, 110, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.06.038
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
