THE AIM OF THE EXPERIMENT

The aim of the experiment is to learn about effects of forces on solids, particularly through studying wire
elongation (as the simplest deformation type,) calculating the Young's modulus for steel, and gaining
proficiency in data analysis methods, with emphasis on determining measurement uncertainty.

METHOD
The method involves checking if wire is preloaded, measuring wires dimensions (length and diameter) (Table
1), and recording masses of weights (Table 2). Then, after placing the micrometer in the holder and zeroing
sensor, placing weights on the preload pulley, and incrementally adding them to document sum of masses and
wire elongation (Table 3), which can be calculated form the following formulas:

σ=𝐸 , (1)

and

F
σ= . (2)
S
Where S is equal to cross-section diameter (d) of a wire
2
πd
S= , (3)
4
and is equal to ratio of increase in wire length and it is original length (l)

l−l 0
ε= . (4)
l0
By comparing equations (1), (2) and (4) we obtain:

F l−l 0
=E . (5)
S l0
Since we added weights of a known mass (m) and there weren’t any other forces we can say:
l0
l−l 0= ⋅ mg (6)
SE
For our convenience we denoted difference between lengths of a wire as a δ :

δ = l−l 0. (7)
Since difference of length increases as mass is added we can represent it as a function and calculate its slope
coefficient with use of the least square method:

δ=a ⋅ m. (8)
To calculate slope coefficient we compare formulas (6) and (8) :

l0 ⋅ g
a= . (9)
SE
After transforming equation (9) and with use of equation (3) our final formula looks as follow:
4 l0 g 1
E= 2
∙ . (10)
πd a
m
Where g for Łó dź is approximately 9,81164 2
[2]
s

RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATIONS

Slope coefficient equations is:

∑ xi y i
a= i=1n , (11)
∑x 2
i
i=1

so, transforming it with equation (8):

∑ mi δ i
a= i=1n . (12)
∑m 2
i
i=1

Using table 2. and 3. We obtain:

mm m
a=0.00013417 =1.3417 ×10−7 . (13)
g kg

Table 1. Values of measured quantities and the corresponding uncertainties. Length was measured using millimetre scale, and
diameter was measured using micrometre.

Physical quantity Value d [mm] * d [mm] **

l 0 [ mm ] 1306 0.81 0.81
∆ p l 0 [mm] 1 0.82 0.81
∆ e l 0 [mm] 0.5 0.82 0.83
∆ p d [mm] 0.01 0.82 0.81
∆ e d [mm] 0.001 0.81 0.82
¿ ¿∗¿¿
Notes: l 0  initial length of a wire, d , d  diameter of the wire measured in two perpendicular directions,
∆ p l 0 , ∆ p d  calibration uncertainties; ∆ e l 0, ∆ e d  experimenter's uncertainties.

If we want to calculate young’s module, we have to know the wire’s mean of cross-section:
 n

∑ di = 0.82 mm (14)
d= i=1
n
where: n – number of different diameter measurements.

With use of equation (10), (13) and table 1. we see that young’s module is equal to:
−3 m
4∗1.306 ×10 m∗9,81164 2
s 1 11 N
E= −4 2
∙ =1.80847 ×10 2
(15)
π (8.2 ×10 m) −7 m m
1.3417 ×10
kg
2. Values of the measured masses and the corresponding uncertainties.

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Table
mi[g] 151.43 147.99 136.65 131.66 124.64 117.84 112.04 110.36
∆ p m[g ] 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
∆ e m[g] 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Notes: m i ⎼ mass of
the i-th weight, ∆ p m
⎼ calibration uncertainty for mass, ∆ e m ⎼ experimenter's uncertainty.

THE PLOT OF THE RELATIONSHIP δ (m)

To calculate the uncertainties to properly plot them together we can use equations shown below using
information’s given in table 2. and 3.:

√
2 2
( Δp m ) ( Δ e m ) = 6 × 10−3 g , (16)
u ( m )=u B ( m )= +
3 3
and

√
2 2
(Δp δ) ( Δe δ ) = 6 × 10−4 mm . (17)
u ( δ )=u B ( δ )= +
3 3
Now uncertainty for slope coefficient using information form table 2. and 3.

√
n

∑ ( δi−a mi) 2 −6 mm
=¿3.3 × 10 (18)
i=1
u ( a )= n g
(n−1) ∑ m 2
i
i=1
Now we can plot a graph.
graph 1 Values obtained from our experiment plotted with a linear function obtained from least square method (error bars were included in graph,
but they are so small they are not visible.)

elongation [mm]
obtained values
linear function obtained from least squares method
Linear (linear function obtained from least squares method)

0.14
increase in wire lenghth from inital [mm]

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000

mass [g]

Table 3. Measured values of wire elongation.

Notes:
Number of weights, k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
m⎼
m [g] 151.43 299.42 436.07 567.73 692.37 810.21 922.25 1032.61
sum
δ [ mm ] 0.015 0.036 0.051 0.087 0.099 0.105 0.121 0.139 of the
∆ p δ [ mm ] 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
∆ e δ [ mm ] 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

masses causing the deformation δ .

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
Combined standard uncertainty for the Young's modulus.

√
uc ( E )= c 2l u2 ( l 0 ) + c 2d u2 ( d )+ c 2a u2 ( a )+ c 2g u2 ( g )
0
(19)

where:

1
cl = E, (20)
0
l0

and
 −2
cd= E, (21)
d
and
−1
c a= E, (22)
a
and

1
c g= E . (23)
g
So, we still don’t have uncertainty for:

√
2 2
( ∆ p l0 ) ( ∆ e l0 ) , (24)
u ( l 0 )=u B ( l 0 )= +
3 3
and
Δt g
u ( g )=u B ( g )= , (25)
√3
and

u ( d )= √ u2A ( d )+u 2B ( d ) , (26)

Where using information from table 1. formula (14) we can calculate type a uncertainty:

√
n

∑ ( d i−d )2 2.2 × 10−3 mm , (27)

i=1
u A ( d )= =¿
n ( n−1 )
And using information from table 1.

√
2 2
(∆ p d ) ( ∆ e d ) = 5.8×10−3 mm . (28)
ub ( d ) = +
3 3

So total uncertainty for diameter is equal to:

u ( d )= √ u A ( d )+u B ( d )=6.2 ×10 mm,

2 2 −3
(29)

and for initial length:

u ( l 0 )=0.6 mm, (30)

and for gravity

m
u ( g )=0.1 2. (31)
s
To find total uncertainty for young’s module we use information from table 4. And obtain the following result:
 uc ( E )=¿ 4.59×10 9 Pa (32)

Table 4. Summary results of measurement uncertainty values.

xj cx j
u(x j) |c x |u(x j)
j

N N
10
u ( l0 ) 1.15×10 11 3 6 ×10 m
−4
6.9×10 2
m m
14 N 12 N
u (d ) -3.66×10 3 6.2 ×10
−6
m 2.27×10 2
m m
kg∗N −6 m 9 N
u (a ) -1.12×10 15 3 3.3 × 10 3.30×10 2
m kg m
2
10 s ∗N m 9 N
u ( g) 1.53×10 3
0.1 2. 1.53×10 2
m s m

Expanded uncertainty equation is:

U ( E ) =k uc (E) , (33)
where k is the expansion coefficient. For k = 2 we obtained:
U ( E ) = 9.18 ×10 9Pa (34)
Our final results are
E=180.8( 4.6)GPa , (35)
And
E=(180.8 ± 9.2)GPa . (36)

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES
[1] Ł. Piskorski, Evaluation of uncertainty in measurements, 2020.

[2] Axis Sp. Z o. o., Instrukcja obsługi siłomierza