Lab Report Analysis 

 

Qaasid Bajwa 

The City College of New York 

Writing for Engineering: ENGL 21007 

Professor Jacobson 

05 October 2022 

 

 

Lab Report Analysis 

Lab reports are very important in the engineering and scientific worlds, as they present ideas that can innovate technology. A lab report is a form of technical communication and is a collection of ideas that is presented in a report. It is made up of a title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. This is usually followed in a linear fashion; however, different lab reports can have separate ways of organizing the report. “Case Study on Effect of Transformer Rating on Impulse Voltage Distribution in Windings” (by Sekhon et al., 2021) and “Study of shaft voltage of a simplified synchronous generator” (by Darques et al., 2019) both contain the 8 components of a lab report.  

The first component of a lab report is the title. This is the first thing that readers look at, and an effective title is one that captures the purpose of your experiment and draws readers in. For the first lab report, “Case Study on Effect of Transformer Rating on Impulse Voltage Distribution in Windings,” it is an effective title, as the purpose of the study, improving the transformer rating in windings is clearly stated, and since it is basic, the reader does not get confused on what the subject of the study is. The title of the second lab report, “Study of shaft voltage of a simplified synchronous generator” is similarly effective, as it is immediately known that the lab report is on shaft voltage of a simplified synchronous generator. Since both lab reports have titles that are specific, it is easy to tell what each one is about, which will save engineers and scientists’ time, as it is easier for them to find what they are looking for when they are looking for keywords in specific research disciplines. For example, when someone wants to research about shaft voltage of a simplified synchronous generator, just typing that in will bring that person to this study, which saves their time. 

Now we will talk about the second component of a lab report, which is an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the entire report, and each component of the report is a sentence or two. There are two types of abstracts, informative abstracts, and descriptive abstracts. Informative abstracts present the major findings of the lab report. On the other hand, descriptive abstracts simply state the topics covered in the report without presenting the major findings of the lab report. In “Case Study on Effect of Transformer Rating on Impulse Voltage Distribution in Windings,” the abstract is descriptive rather than informative. For example, Sekhon et al. (2021) talk about how the challenges and results of the transformer being used as 10,000 kVA (p. 1). This is good for people who want to know what the study is about in a single paragraph, but because it doesn’t cover the major findings of the study, you have to read more of the report. Similarly, Darques et al. (2019) mention how the paper deals with the study of two simplified synchronous generators, and then goes on to describe the number of poles (p. 1). In this way, both lab reports are similar, as they both have descriptive abstracts rather than informative abstracts. The abstract, along with the title and conclusion, will be what hook readers in. The authors are both effective in this, because both abstracts are very simple, which does not confuse the reader on what the lab report is about.  

Next, we have the third component of a lab report, which is an introduction. An effective introduction should give an overview of previous research that is relevant to your study, as well as describing your methods for your study. If you have any equations, you should also include them in your introduction. Both lab reports have keywords that identify the subjects right before the introduction. Sekhon et al. (2021) provides helpful background information, as they mention what a transformer is, and then go on to explain how it works (p. 1). This helps the reader in establishing context, and then they go on to mention previous studies as well. They state, “However, the response of windings during such overvoltage surges is more complicated and study of this complicated behavior of windings has appeared in various research publications.” (Sekhon et al., 2021, p. 1) The way that the introduction was structured made it easy for the reader to understand what was going on and is an effective introduction.  

Darques et al. (2019) also mention previous studies in their lab report. This helps back up their research, as the reader can see that there is indeed a need for this study because other people have also researched something similar. Conversely, Darques et al. do not mention what a shaft generator is, but instead define the function of one. They mention, “For this purpose, diagnosis tools have to be developed in order to detect, in advance, defects such as eccentricities or inter turn short circuit of the field winding that can appear during operation” (Darques et al., 2019, p. 1). Darques et al. jumped from a basic background to previous research without mentioning basic terminology, which made it confusing to follow. For this reason, less people will be able to understand this, which could potentially decrease their funding. There was also analysis in the introduction, which felt out of place. They also give an overview of the paper. Therefore, the first lab report had a more effective introduction compared to the second lab report because Sekhon et al. made the introduction very clear, while Darques et al. did not use a lot of basic terminology. 

We will now discuss the fourth component of a lab report, the materials and methods section. This should show that your results are credible, and how you carried out your study. You should have a list of everything used to see if your study can be replicated. Something interesting to me was that both lab reports showed the equations they used in the materials and methods section instead of in the introduction. This was most likely done because the authors felt that it would be better for readers to see the equations right before they were used instead of a couple of paragraphs before. Sekhon et al. (2021) also explain how each equation is used, and the importance of each equation. For example, “So, as per Equation (4) more turns, Nt, will lead to higher value of Cg” (Sekhon et al., 2021, p. 1). This was interesting because the author makes it clear how to duplicate the experiment.  

Darques et al. do this as well, but also include an applications section in the materials and methods. For example, Darques et al. say, “As stated above, the best way to quantify the inherent effect of a given eccentricity on the shaft voltage consists in determining these effects in the case of a simplified structure without slots or windings in order to avoid any interaction” (Darques et al. 2019, p. 3). Showing the applications is very smart because this way you can further prove the significance of your study. This also increases the credibility of their work. As a result, the second lab report was more effective than the first in the materials and methods section because Darques et al. made it easier to see what exactly was being done by showing applications, while Sekhon et al. did not do this.  

The results section is the fifth component of a lab report. This should include summarized data and graphics. Sekhon et al. (2021) accomplished this very well, as the lab report contained multiple charts, such as the Safety Margins of 10,000kVA 225/132/33kV Transformer on page 3. There is also something else that Sekhon et al. did that was interesting. In this segment, “As per Equation (8), windings with higher number of turns Nt, interleaving more effectively improve Cse., ”  (Sekhon et al. 2021, p. 3) you can see how they explain the equations used again. I found that repeating the equations is effective, as I now remember the equations used in the back of my head. This also helps improve the interest in the report, as the audience is not confused about any numbers that are then used. Therefore, the audience would not need to do that much work, and this would increase the interest in the report. Darques et al. do something similar, as there are also many graphs in the lab report. For example, on page 4, figure 4, you see the graph of “Flux in three coils for the 2-pole machine (a) and resultant flux(b) in the case of a 20% static eccentricity” (Darques et al. 2019, p. 4). However, Darques et al. do not seem to show the equations used over here. This can cause confusion among readers, because if you do not show your equations, then your numbers might not make sense to readers. This could then decrease the interest in the lab report, which could have a negative impact on their careers. Thus, Sekhon et al. did a better job in the results section than Darques et al. because Sekhon et al. show all their work, which increases the strength of their paper. 

The sixth component of a lab report is the discussion section. This is where you analyze the results obtained from the study. Sekhon et al. opted to have the results and discussion in the same part of the research paper, as can be seen from page 3 where the title of section 4 is results and discussion. I believe that this is probably the best way to format a lab report, as you can kill two birds with one stone by showing your results and then explaining what they mean. You save space on your lab report and come out looking very professional and organized. This could therefore increase the funding for your next study, which will help you in your profession. For example, Sekhon et al. state, “Therefore, α value need to be reduced for improving voltage distribution in winding and reducing stress concentration at line end terminal” (Sekhon et al., 2021, p. 4). Right after having the results, there is a graph shown, which is then followed by this excerpt. This seems very efficient to me and makes things less complicated for the reader, as everything you need to see is right in front of you, and you do not need to scroll back up to see anything. This helps increase the credibility of their report, which can also help them in increasing their budget for their next study. Similarly, Darques et al. show where you see the results and then an interpretation of them. (Darques et al. 2019, p. 6) However, Darques et al. have a lot more visuals than Sekhon et al., which can help the reader visualize the work being done. On the other hand, Darques et al. do not have anything underneath the graphs besides the title, which weakens their audience interest. This is because the reader now has to scroll to find the conclusion drawn from each graph, which can waste valuable time. Therefore, Sekhon et al. have a more impactful results and discussion section than Darques et al. because Sekhon et al. have an excerpt right after each graph, which makes it easier for the reader to understand what is happening. 

We will move on to the seventh component of a lab report, the conclusion. Here, you summarize your entire report in one or two paragraphs, as well as expressing the significance of your work. Sekhon et al. summarize their paper, and then give suggestions to the transformer specification framing committee on improving current transformers. Darques et al. also summarize their paper, and then mention future research that will be done. Both conclusions are equally effective because both authors seem to acknowledge the studies are not finished, and further research is needed. Although the authors acknowledge that further research needs to be done, this can pave the way for them to then continue the study with more funding from the readers. 

The final component of a lab report is the acknowledgements and references section. Sekhon et al. have 11 references and acknowledge 1 person. Darques et al. have 18 references and acknowledge a company rather than a single person. 

After analyzing the lab reports discussed above, I think that both lab reports were effective, and mostly followed the structure of the eight elements described in chapter 19. However, there were a few differences, such as where the keywords were placed, where the equations were placed, and how the results and discussion sections were organized. There were differences compared to the structure in chapter 19 because both groups of authors wanted to make it easier for readers to be able to understand the results. They felt that having the discussions section in the same part of the lab report would make it easier for their results to be understood. Overall, Sekhon et al. had a more effective lab report than Darques et al. because Sekhon et al. had a stronger introduction, results section, and discussion section, while Darques et al. only had a stronger materials and methods section. In my opinion, they were roughly the same in the other categories, which is why Sekhon et al. had a more effective lab report. 

 

 

References 

 Sekhon, H. S., Rathore, P., & Dommeti, V. (2021). Case study on effect of transformer rating on impulse voltage distribution in windings. 2021 IEEE 9th International Conference on Smart Energy Grid Engineering (SEGE). https://doi.org/10.1109/sege52446.2021.9535007 

Darques, K., Tounzi, A., Le Menach, Y., & Beddek, K. (2019). Study of shaft voltage of a simplified synchronous generator. International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, 59(2), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.3233/jae-171205