FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

TECHNOLOGY

CAMPUS GROUP T

Lab report Materials Science

phase 1
Bending test

Academic year 2022-2023

1 INTRODUCTION

This experiment aims to calculate the E-Modulus (modulus of elasticity) a material by testing
three different bars. Three bars of this material, with differing dimensions are subject to
different degrees of bending stress and deformation is measured. This test allows for the E-
Modulus to be determined through minimal measurements, utilizing a formula to calculate E-
Modulus from the deformation.

2 BACKGROUND/ THEORY

Here we refer to the lab text and the lecture text. [1] [2]

3 METHOD & MATERIALS

Here we refer to the lab text. [1]

4 RESULTS

4.1 Measurements
This section offers a thorough summary of the information gathered during the experiment,
with a focus on the displacement and E-modulus values of the three rods under various
weights. Tables show the displacement values of each rod for varying weights together with
the matching E-modulus values. Moreover, the results are presented visually in the form of
two graphs.
Measurements for Bar 1:

Table 1: Width and height measurements with averages for Bar 1.

2
 Width (b) Height (h)
Measurement
(mm) (mm)

1 25.1 8

2 25.0 8

3 25.1 8

4 24.9 8

5 25.0 8

6 25.0 8

Average 25.016 8

Table 2: Deflection and E-modulus values for Bar 1 on each weight.

Added Weight Reference point Reading Clock Z Deflection (v) E-modulus

(N) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa)

5.33 9.89 9.79 0.10 224.6

10.6 9.89 9.67 0.22 203.2

15.2 9.89 9.59 0.30 213.5

19.9 9.89 9.50 0.39 215.3

25.2 9.89 9.40 0.49 216.8

30.52 9.89 9.29 0.60 214.4

Measurements for Bar 2:

Table 3: Width and height measurements with averages for Bar 2.

3
 Width (b) Height (h)
Measurement
(mm) (mm)

1 25.3 4.2

2 25.0 4.1

3 25.0 4

4 25.1 4.2

5 25.1 4

6 25.1 4.3

Average 25.1 4.13

Table 4: Deflection and E-modulus values for Bar 2 on each weight.

Added Weight Reference point Reading Clock Z Deflection (v) E-modulus

(N) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa)

5.33 9.43 8.54 0.89 182.3

10.6 9.43 8.06 1.37 235.8

15.2 9.43 7.54 1.89 244.9

19.9 9.43 6.48 2.95 205.7

25.2 9.43 5.67 3.76 204.1

30.52 9.43 4.83 4.60 202.1

Measurements for Bar 3:

Table 5: Width and height measurements with averages for Bar 3.

4
 Width (b) Height (h)
Measurement
(mm) (mm)

1 20.0 4.0

2 20.0 4.1

3 20.0 4.0

4 20.0 4.1

5 20.0 4.0

6 19.9 4.1

Average 19.98 4.05

Table 6: Deflection and E-modulus values for Bar 3 on each weight.

Added Weight Reference point Reading Clock Z Deflection (v) E-modulus

(N) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa)

5.33 9.42 8.36 1.06 204.4

10.6 9.42 7.29 2.13 202.5

15.2 9.42 6.38 3.04 203.3

19.9 9.42 5.41 4.01 202.0

25.2 9.42 4.35 5.07 202.1

30.52 9.42 3.28 6.14 202.2

4.2 Graphs
Graph 1: Visual representation of displacements of each rod depending on added weight.

5
 Force-Displacement Graph of each rod
7

6
f(x) = 0.201727882689746 x − 0.0141566097677419
R² = 0.999988224439857
5
Bar 1
f(x) = 0.153510467516197 x − 0.154602317114231 Linear (Bar 1)
4 R² = 0.985152848965696
[mm]

Bar 2
Linear (Bar 2)
3
Bar 3
Linear (Bar 3)
2

f(x) = 0.0195005063179257 x + 0.00304562655602397

0 R² = 0.998941627085094
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

[N]

Graph 2: Visual representation of average E-modulus of each rod.

Average E-modulus comparison of the bars

216

214

212

210

208
GPa

206

204

202

200

198

196
Bar 1 Bar 2 Bar 3

6
4.3 Calculations
The example calculations of the elasticity moduli determined by the measured values and the
plotted graph as well as the error determination on those values are described in the section
below.

4.3.1 Measuring point for rod 1 and weight of 1.5 kg

To calculate the elasticity modulus E , formula (1) is applied[1]:

F L3
E= (1)
4 vb h3
Where F is the force applied, L is the distance between the supports, v is the deflection, b
and h is the width and height of the cross-section, respectively.

15.195∗0.63
E= 3
4∗0.0003∗0.025∗0.008
E=213.5GPa
The error on the E-modulus is influenced by the instrumental and statistical errors, those
partial uncertainties should first be determined and, afterwards can be plugged in formula (2)
[3]:

√( ) ( )
2
∂q ∂q
∆ q= ( ∗∆ x ¿ ¿ 2+⋯ + ∗∆ z )¿ (2)
∂x ∂z
For this case, formula(2) can be interpreted the following way:

√( ) ( )( )( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
∂E ∂E ∂E ∂E ∂E
∆ E= ( ∗∆ F ¿ ¿ 2+ ∗∆ L + ∗∆ v + ∗∆ h ++ ∗∆ b )¿ (3)
∂F ∂L ∂v ∂h ∂b
The error on the ∆ F is influenced by the uncertainty of the weight of masses which is caused
by the instrumental error on the scale. Therefore, it is equal to 0.0005 N . The same can be
said about the errors on the ∆ L and ∆ v , which are caused by the reading error on the ruler (
0.00005 m¿ and dial (0.000005 m), respectively. Since values of h and b are average of 6
measurements, the errors ∆ h and ∆ b are calculated as distribution errors, making use of
formulas (4), (5) and (6) [3]:
n

∑ x i (4)
X average= i=1
n

√
n

∑ ( x average −x i )2 (5)
i=1
S x=
n−1
3∗S x
∆ x= (6)
√n

7
The first step is to determine the average value of the width b :
n

∑ bi
i=1
b average=
n
0.0251+0.0250+0.0250+0.0250+ 0.0251+ 0.0249
b average=
6
b average=0.02502 ≈ 0.025 m

Then, compute the standard deviation as follows:

√
n

∑ ( b average−bi )2
i=1
Sb =
n−1

√
2 2 2 2 2
( 0.0250−0.0251 ) + ( 0.0250−0.0250 ) + ( 0.0250−0.0251 ) + ( 0.0250−0.0249 ) + ( 0.0250−0.0250 ) + ( 0.025
Sb =
6−1
Sb =0.000075 m
Applying formula (6) gives the following:
3∗S b
∆ b=
√n
3∗0.000075
∆ b= =0.000092 m
√6
Analogously, the error on the value of height ∆ h can be determined.
0.008+0.008+0.008+ 0.008+0.008+0.008
h average=
6
b average=0.008 m

√
2 2 2 2 2 2
( 0.008−0.008 ) + ( 0.008−0.008 ) + ( 0.008−0.008 ) + ( 0.008−0.008 ) + ( 0.008−0.008 ) + ( 0.008−0.008 )
Sh =
6
Sh=0 m
Since the distribution is too small and the ∆ h=0 m (which is less then the instrumental error)
we should use the original measurement error, namely ∆ h=0.00005 m .
After mathematical conversions formula (3) is as follows:

√( ) ( )( )( )( )
3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2
L 3 FL FL 3FL FL
∆ E= ( 3
∗∆ F ¿ ¿2+ 3
∗∆ L + 2 3
∗∆ v + 4
∗∆ h + 2 3
∗∆ b )¿
4 vb h 4 vb h 4 v bh 4 vb h 4 vb h

8
Since the formula is quite long, let’s divide it into the 5 sub-expressions, afterwards plugging
in the computed values in the derived above formula.

( L3
4 vb h
3
∗∆ F )(
=
0.63
4∗0.0003∗0.025∗0.008
3
∗0.0005 =70312500 Pa )
(3 FL2
4 vb h3
∗∆ L = )( 3 ¿15.20∗0.62
4∗0.0003∗0.025∗0.0083
∗0.00005 =53437500 Pa )
( )( )
3 3
FL 15.20∗0.6
2 3
∗∆ v = 2 3
∗0.000005 =3562500000 Pa
4 v bh 4∗0.0003 ∗0.025∗0.008

( )( )
3 3
3FL 3 ¿15.20∗0.6
4
∗∆ h = 4
∗0.00005 =4007812500 Pa
4 vb h 4∗0.0003∗0.025∗0.008

( F L3
4 vb2 h3
∗∆ b =
)( 15.20∗0.63
4∗0.0003∗0.0252∗0.0083
∗0.000092 =786600000 Pa
)
The calculated values can now be substituted into the formula:

∆ E=√ 70312500 + 53437500 +3562500000 + 4007812500 + 786600000

2 2 2 2 2

9
∆ E=5.42∗10 Pa ≈ 6 GPa
Thus, the value of the E-modulus, determine for the first rod under the load of 1.549 kg is as
follows:
E=( E ± ∆ E)
E=( 214 ± 6 ) GPa

4.3.2 Average values

The average values of the E-modulus of 3 different bars are computed applying formula (4):
n

∑ Ei
i=1
Eaverage =
n
Plugging in the determined values of the E-modulus results in:

224.6 +203.2+ 213.5+215.3+216.8+214.4

E1average =
6
E1average =214.6 GPa
To determine the statistical error on the value of elasticity modulus, the standard deviation
should be calculated applying formula (5):

9
 √
n

∑ ( Eaverage −Ei )2
i=1
S E=
n−1

The calculated above average values along with the measured values can now be
substituted in formula(5):

√
2 2 2 2 2 2
( 214.6−224.6 ) + ( 214.6−203.2 ) + ( 214.6−215.3 ) + (214.6−216.8 ) + ( 214.6−215.3 ) + ( 214.6−214.4 )
SE =
1
5
S E =6.9 GPa
1

The distribution error is determined making use of formula (6)

3∗S E
∆ E 1= 1

√n
3∗6.9
∆ E 1=
√6
∆ E 1=8.5 GPa ≈ 9 GPa
The statistical errors on the elasticity moduli ∆ E 2 and ∆ E 3 are calculated in the same way.
E2average =212.5 GPa
E3average =202.8 GPa

S E =23 GPa
2

S E =0.94 GPa
3

∆ E 2=29 GPa ≈ 30GPa

∆ E 3=1.2GPa ≈ 2GPa

Therefore, the values of the E-moduli E1, E2 and E3 are the following:

E1= ( 215± 9 ) GPa

E2= ( 210± 30 ) GPa
E3 =( 203± 2 ) GPa

10
4.3.3 Graphical values
If we plot the graph v(F) as a deflection v in function of a force F, the value of elasticity
modulus can be determined making use of the slope of that graph. Since slope is equal to
v
slope= , formula (1) which is used to calculated the elasticity modulus can be interpreted
F
as:
3
L
3
∗1
4 bh (7)
E=
slope
mm mm
It is seen from Figure 1 that slope 1=0.0195 , slope 2=0.1535 and
N N
mm
slope 3=0.2017 .
N
Applying formula (7) and plugging in the values of the slopes from Figure 1 results in the
following:
3 3
(0.6∗10 )
∗1
4∗0.0250∗103∗(0.008∗103 )3
E1=
0.0195
E1=216.4 GPa

3 3
(0.6∗10 )
∗1
4∗0.0251∗103∗(0.00413∗103)3
E2=
0.1535
E2=199.0GPa

3 3
(0.6∗10 )
∗1
4∗0.0199∗103∗(0.00405∗103 )3
E 2=
0.2017
E3 =193.9GPa
To determine the error on the slope of the trend line, make use of the following formula:
∆ slope ≈ 3∗S slope

Where Sslope is a estimation of the standard deviation on the value of slope, which is in turn
calculated as:

√
2
slop e 1
Sslope = ∗( 2 −1)
n−2 r
Where r is the correlation coefficient which indicates the degree of the relationship of linearity
between x and y.

11
 Those equations are pre-programmed in Microsoft Excel and since they are quite
complicated, the calculations are being done making use of this software program.

mm
Sslope1=0.000317
N
mm
Sslope 2=0.009423
N
mm
Sslope3=0.000346
N

mm
∆ slop e1=0.000952
N
mm
∆ slop e2=0.028268
N
mm
∆ slop e3 =0.001038
N
The values of the slopes taking into account errors are the following:
mm
slope 1=( 0.020 ± 0.001 )
N
mm
slop e 2=( 0.15 ± 0.03 )
N
mm
slope 3=( 0.202 ± 0.001 )
N
The component of the dimensions D is calculated as:

L3
D=
4 b h3
0.63
D 1=
4∗0.025∗0.0083
6 1
D1=4.22∗10
m
0.63
D 2=
4∗0.0251∗0.00413
7 1
D 2=3.12∗10
m
0.6 3
D 3=
4∗0.0198∗0.00405 3

12
 7 1
D 3=4.11∗10
m
The errors on the dimensions of the bars D 1, D 2 and D 3 are computed applying formulas (2),
(4), (5) and (6). Since the similar procedure has already been done in the section 4.3.1, the
description in this section is limited.
Formula (2) is interpreted in the following way:

√( ) ( )( )
2 2
∂D ∂D ∂D
∆ D= ( ∗∆ L ¿ ¿ 2+ ∗∆ b + ∗∆ h ) ¿
∂L ∂b ∂h

√( ) ( )( )
2 3 2 3 2
3L L 3∗L
∆ D= ( 3
∗∆ L ¿ ¿ 2+ 2 3
∗∆ b + 4
∗∆ h )¿ (8)
4 bh 4b h 4 bh

From section 4.3.1 we know that

for the rod 1: ∆ L=0.0005 m, ∆ b=0.000092 m and ∆ h=0.00005 m
In the same way, applying formulas(4), (5) and (6) the errors on the widths and heights of the
rods 2 and 3 are calculated, obtaining the following values:
Rod 2:∆ L=0.0005 m, ∆ b=0.00013 m , ∆ h=0.00015 m
Rod 3:∆ L=0.0005 m, ∆ b=0.00005 m , ∆ h=0.00007 m
The calculated above values are substituted in formula (8) to calculate the error on the
dimensions:

√( ) ( )( )
2 3 2 3 2
3L L 3∗L
∆ D= ( 3
∗∆ L ¿ ¿ 2+ 2 3
∗∆ b + 4
∗∆ h )¿
4 bh 4b h 4 bh

√( ) ( )( )
2 3 2 3 2
3 ¿ 0.6 0.6 3¿ 0.6
∆ D1 = ( 3
∗0.0005 ¿ ¿ 2+ 2 3
∗0.000092 + ∗0.00005 )¿
4∗0.025∗0.008 4∗0.025 ∗0.008 4∗0.025∗0.0084
1
∆ D1 =81.3∗103
m
The errors ∆ D2 and ∆ D3 are calculated analogously:
1
∆ D2 =3.3∗106
m
6 1
∆ D3 =1.8∗10
m
Finally, the error on the value of E-modulus is computed as:

√( ) ( )
2 2
D 1
∆ E= ∗∆ slope + ∗∆ D
slope 2
slope

13
 √( )( )
6 2
4.2∗10 ∗1 1 3
2

3 ∗81.3∗10 ∗1
10 0.0195
∆ E 1= 2
∗0.000952 + 3
0.0195 10
N
∆ E 1=11311 ≈ 20 GPa
m m2
N
∆ E 2=43202 ≈ 50GPa
mm 2
N
∆ E 3=10464 ≈ 10 GPa
mm2

Therefore, the values of the E-moduli determined by means of the slope on the plotted graph
are the following:
E1= ( 220± 20 ) GPa
E2= ( 200± 50 ) GPa
E3 =( 190± 10 ) GPa

5 DISCUSSION

The graphically determined values of the E-moduli ended up being equal to ( 220 ± 20 ) GPa ,
( 200 ±50 ) GPa , ( 190 ±10 ) GPa respectively for the three experiments. Thought just barely,
these numbers do correspond with each other within the possible frame of error. The mean
values on the other hand check out at ( 215 ± 9 ) GPa , ( 210 ±30 ) GPa , and E3 =( 203± 2 ) GPa.
All numbers correspond with each other within error, aside from the last one, which lands just
1 GPa off.

In theory, the thinnest of the bars should be able to give us the most accurate result, which,
in practice it does, with only an error frame of 10 Gpa. This however happens to be the only
one of the three experiment results which even within the error window does not correspond
with the E modulus values from literature, which is typically said to be around 210 Gpa.

The especially high degree of inaccuracy, compared to both reference and internal values of
the third experiment, or, the one with the thinnest rod, hints at the possibility of a systematic
error connected to the measuring of the starting position of the rod. The measurements
performed later for determining the degree of variance between weighted measurements of
equal weights, the measurements seemed to increase one after another, with this being
especially noticeable with the thinner bar. While this could be a coincidence, it could also hint
at a systemic error in the measurements which only became noticeable in the context of the
thinnest bar.

14
for a bar subjected to a bending load, the deflection is directly proportional to the load applied
and inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the cross-sectional area of the bar. The
moment of inertia, in turn, depends on the width and thickness of the bar, as well as the
shape of the cross-sectional area. In the context of a rectangular cross section, a wider and
thicker bar will have a higher moment of inertia and will therefore be stiffer and more
resistant to bending than a narrower and thinner bar. Our observations seem to directly
confirm this notion.
As for the asystemic errors, two measurements, namely the first and the third, from the
second experiment fell quite far from the average as well as the rest of the measurements.
While this only impacted our measurements somewhat, it is likely responsible for the high
degree of inaccuracy obtained for the second experiment in the end. The causes for this
error could vary, but we believe the main driving reason to be our inexperience with the setup
at the point of measuring. While the experiment is labeled number 2, it was in fact the first to
be performed in the lab, so human error such as misalignment of the measuring tool and the
weight bracket or, perhaps even a mismeasurement on the scale could have caused these
deviations.
The accuracy of this experiment could be improved in a variety of ways. One driver of
uncertainty as well as undocumented inaccuracy in the results was human error, which was
likely abundant because of the setup. The different moving parts were difficult to hold
together in consistent positions. Fixing the bars more securely to the holding device as well
as the weight attachment module to the bar itself could be one improvement. Additionally
using a digital, perhaps laser or camera based method of measuring deflection could
definitely be useful in reducing uncertainty.
The width and thickness of the bar was measured 6 times in the experiment, and while in
practice this was useful at estimating the average dimensions from across the bar, in theory
the different moments of inertia along the different points in the length of the bar will affect
our measurements differently.
The deflection of the rod was not taken into account in the experiment, because the 0 value
was measured at the point of deflection already caused by the object. While taking this point
as 0 can be problematic in context of larger deflections, our measurements were small
enough for this tiny deflection not to matter in the grand scheme.
The six conditions needed to make the theoretical formula viable are all satisfied, at least to a
degree in our experiment. Namely, the material is isotropic; the beam is in the elastic region
and no plastic deformation occurs; the load is applied gradually, no sudden deformation is, at
least to our ability, enacted; The beam has an almost constant cross section, with the tiny
variations being factored out when averaging its dimensions across its length throughout the
6 initial measurements; The beam experiences no sheer deformation and finally the beam is
made of a homogenous material.
The bars of the supporting structure have to be much thicker than the bar for which deflection
is measured in order not to contract meaningfully themselves because of the force of the
weight being applied to them and as such not to impact our measured values of the E-
modulus for the needed bar.

15
6 CONCLUSION

Most of our measurements lined up quite well with theory, with our best measurement of E
modulus for steel landing at ( 220 ± 20 ) GPa . Small deviations, both internally between
different results as well as from literature values were indeed present, however we managed
to understand and explain these inaccuracies. Overall, the experiment mostly yielded results
consistent with reality, and past a few small misgivings elaborated on in the previous section,
the results were mutually sound, within frames of error.

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] J. Loeckx, “Bending Test”, not published.

[2] W. Dewulf, “Structure, Behaviour and Sustainability of Materials”, not published.
[3] J. L. Liesje Deneyer, Uncertainty Analysis, Leuven: KU Leuven, 2022-2023.

16