Determination of Young’s modulus and

Poisson’s ratio using Cornu’s method

Mahesh Gandikota
Y1011025
Third semester
Integrated MSc
National Institute of Science Education and Research

Experiment completed: 17/08/2011

Report submitted: 30/08/2011

1
1 Aim
To determine Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of a glass
slab using Cornu’s method.

2 Theory
Speaking loosely, if we were to press on any object from all the sides, the
object won’t crumple down to infinitesimal size.This doesnt happen because
of the internal forces which tend to bring back the system to it’s stable
equilibrium state where the internal energy is minimum. These internal
forces balance the external forces at some point of time.

The subject of elasticity deals with the behaviour of those

substances which have the property of recovering their size and
shape when the forces producing the deformations are
removed...If the force is small enough, the relative displacements
of the various points in the material are proportional to the
force - we say that the behaviour is elastic.[1]

It is an experimental observation that “For a large number of materials,

...for sufficiently small extensions the force is proportional to the
extension.”[1]
F ∝ ∆l (1)
Hereby we give a linear relationship between the force and the extension.
Due to the virtue of this linear relation the principle of superposition is
obeyed by the internal forces. This empirical relation is known as Hooke’s
law. For the whole of our experiment, we assume that Hooke’s law is being
obeyed and that we are within the elastic limits of the material. The
Young’s modulus, one of the elastic constants, is defined as the ratio of
stress to strain
F
A
Y = ∆l
l

• A ⇒ area

• l ⇒ length of the non-extended rectangular block

Thus, for a rectangular block, Young’s modulus has the form

Fl
Y = (2)
A∆l

2
Consider a two dimensional rubber material, if you stretch it, it gets in that
direction of the force being applied. As the stretching does not change the
net area of the rubber material, there must be a contraction to be observed
somewhere in the strip of rubber. “There is another part to Hooke’s law:
When you stretch a block of material in one direction it contracts at right
angles to the stretch.”[1] This phenomenon cannot be explained by equation
(1). Because this equation predicts only that the force in one direction
produces an effect only about that direction. To explain the contraction of
rubber in a perpendicular direction to that of the force, we would have to
consider expressing elasticity as a tensorial property. Here the force
provided on the material can be seen to have effects in other directions too.
∆w ∆h ∆l
= = −σ (3)
w h l
w is the width and h is the height of the rectangular block. σ is another
elastic constant called the Poisson’s ratio. It’s range should be in
−1 < σ < 0.5 so that the shear and the bulk modulus of elasticity stay
positive. These two elastic constants are sufficient for describing the elastic
properties of a homogeneous and isotropic materials [1]. For the other
cases, we need to make use of tensors.

3
Cornu’s method The apparatus shown above has a glass beam bent
under loads at it’s ends and balancing on the two knife edges. A glass plate
is placed on the center of the glass beam resulting the making of an air film
enclosed between these two surfaces. An interference fringe pattern is
produced due to the interference of the light rays getting reflected from the
bottom of the glass plate with the light rays reflected from the top of the
glass slab.
We know that on stretching a piece of rubber, we can observe that the
width of the rubber gets narrowed near the center of the strip which is
quantified by the Poisson’s ratio. In analogy to this, in two dimensions, the
bending of the glass slab in the direction of the weight gives raise to a
transverse bending of the glass beam as a cup, opposite to the bending of
the glass slab visibly seen. This gives a saddle like structure (not visible
through naked eyes in this experiment) to the glass beam. The center of
this sphere (if the two dimensional surface is completed) will be on the
positive Z axis while the center of the sphere visibly seen will be in the
negative Z axis. If we take x and y to be the longitudinal and transverse
direction respectively, then let us name the corresponding radii of curvature
as Rx and Ry respectively. Let the thickness of the airfilm, a function of x
and y, be represented as t(x, y). Considering the X dependence of air film,
i.e. t(x)

(Rx − t(x))2 + x2 = Rx2

Ignoring the t(x)2 term, we can rewrite this as,

x2
t(x) = (4)
2Rx
Similarly
y2
t(y) = − (5)
2Ry

4
The negative sign is because of the bending of the glass beam would be
upward and reduces the thickness of the airfilm t(x, y) correspondingly.
x2 y2
t(x, y) = t(x) + t(y) = − (6)
2Rx 2Ry
The locus of the points having the same path difference determines the
equation for the shape of the fringe pattern produced. Equating the above
expression to some constant a2 ,
x2 y2
− = a2 (7)
2Rx 2Ry
This corresponds to the equation of a hyperbola.
2π
∆φ = [2nt(x, y)] + π
λ
The extra π difference is due to the hard reflection of the light rays from
the top of the glass beam. Here, the refractive index, n = 1.
For the X axis, substituting the path difference and equating it to the
condition of destructive interference, we gets
x2N
= Nλ
Rx
also, for an integer s we write
x2N +s
= (N + s)λ
Rx
Thus we get,
x2N +s − x2N
Rx = (8)
sλ
Let’s define
2 2
DN +s − DN
ρx (s) = x2N +s − x2N = (9)
4
where D denotes the distance between corresponding fringes on opposite
sides of fringe pattern.
The bending moment for a rectangular slab would be,
bd3
Gx = Y (10)
12Rx
b and d are the width and thickness of the slab respectively and Y is the
Young’s modulus. As the beam is in equilibrium, the external bending

5
moment must be equal to this internal bending moment. External bending
moment is W l where W is the weight of the load on one side and l is the
distance between the knife edge and the point of suspension. Equating
these two moments, we get

bd3 sλ
Wl = Y (11)
12 ρx (s)

If m1 and the m2 are the two loads, we can rewrite the above expression as

12(m1 − m2 )gl 1
Y = s1 s2
(12)
bd3 λ ρ1x (s)
− ρ2x (s)

The superscripts used for s and ρ may not be mistaken for powers. The
fraction ρxs(s) is found out by plotting the data and finding out the slope of
the best fit. The Poisson ratio is the ratio of the radius of curvature in the
longitudinal direction to that of the transverse direction. With the same
arguments as that for Rx ,
2 2
yN +s − yN
Ry =
sλ
Rx x2 +s − x2N
σ= = N
2 2
(13)
Ry yN +s − yN

The experiment can be similarly done by using a plano convex lens instead
of a glass plate on the glass beam. Here the air gap would change as

x2 y2 x2 + y 2
t(x, y) = − +
2Rx 2Ry 2R

For R < Ry , we get an equation of an ellipse as

x2 y2
t(x, y) = 1 + 1
1 1 1
Rx
+R R
− R1
y

By equation (9), and following on to equation (12), the radius of curvature

of the plano convex lens, Rcancels out. It can be shown as, Let
1 1 1
1
+ = 1
Rx R Re
1 1 1
2
+ = 2
Rx R Re

6
The superscripts stand for different masses,
By (12), we need to subtract the R1e of one mass with the other.

Rx1 + R Rx2 + R
−
Rx1 R Rx2 R

and the R cancels out and we get the same expression as (12) for convex
lens too.

3 Apparatus
• Optically plane glass plate

• Plano-convex lens

• Sodium vapour lamp

• Glass beam

• Vernier calipers and screw gauge

• Hangers, loads, measuring scale.

4 Experimental procedure
1. The width, length and depth of the glass beam is measured using
vernier calipers, screw gauge and a measuring scale respectively. The
center of the glass beam and the slide placed on it is marked.

2. The glass beam is placed on the two knife edges symmetrically and
the distance between the knife edge and the point of suspension
(considering the middle point of the slid of the hanger).

3. The hanger is loaded to weigh 250g.

4. The glass plate is placed on the beam such that the center of the glass
plate coincides with the center of the glass beam.

5. The diffraction pattern can be observed from naked eyes and the
microscope is brought to that position and focussed on the diffraction
pattern produced. The hyperbolic fringes must be seen to be
symmetrical about the X and the Y axis of the eyepiece.

7
 6. Readings are taken of the position of each dark fringe. For X axis, the
readings are taken for the dark fringes on both the sides of the origin.
Similar readings are taken for the Y axis too seeing that the eyepiece
wire is tangential to the fringes.

7. The experiment is repeated now for the weight 300g.

8. The experiment is repeated for both the weights by placing the plano
convex lens (with the convex lens on the bottom) and similar readings
are taken.

5 Data, plot Analysis and discussion

5.1 Calculations
l = 14.55cm, g = 9.79ms−2 , λ = 589.3nm, m1 = 300g, m2 = 250g, b =
4.98cm, d = 0.286cm From (12), we have

12(m1 − m2 )gl 1
Y = s1 s2
bd3 λ ρ1x (s)
− ρ2x (s)

Substituting the above values and the slopes got by the graphs plotted, (the
2
slope of DN (x) v/s N for 250g weight was found to be 0.1155 and for 300g,
it was 0.1034. The reciprocal of the slopes were substituted in the place of
s
ρ2 (s)
and ρ1s(s) respectively) we get
x x

12(300 − 250) × 10−3 × 9.79 × 14.55 × 10−2 1

Y = 1 1
4.98 × 10−2 (0.289 × 10−2 )3 589.3 × 10−9 0.1034×10−4
− 0.1155×10−4

Y = 122.8 GP a
and the accepted value of the Young’s modulus for glass is in the range of
50 to 90 GP a.
x2 −x2n y2 −y 2
The Poisson’s ratio σ = R
Ry
x
where Rx = N +s
sλ
and Ry = N +ssλ N where
2
we make use of the slopes found out. The slope for the graph DN (x) v/s N
1
graph for the x axis and y axis of 250g weight are 0.1155 and 1.027. Thus
0.1155
λ
σ= 1.027 = 0.1125
λ
1
has the same slope as the x2n v/s N graph because D = 2xN

8
and for 300 g, the slopes for X and Y axis are respectively 0.1034 and
0.9285. For this set of values we get
σ = 0.1114
Both the values of σ are seen to be very close to each other.
For the plano-convex lens, we use the same formula for calculating Y,
2
substituting appropriate values, we get (The slope of DN (x) v/s N for 250g
−2 −2
and 300g were 1.1751 × 10 and 1.1374 × 10 respectively . The slope of
DN2
(y) v/s N for 250g and 300g were 1.38 × 10−2 and 1.377 × 10−2 .)

12(300 − 250) × 10−3 × 9.79 × 14.55 × 10−2 1

Y = 1 1
4.98 × 10−2 (0.289 × 10−2 )3 589.3 × 10−9 1.1374×10−6
− 1.1751×10−6

= 44.13GP a
The Poisson ratio for 250g weight is coming out to be
slope1
Rx λ
σ= = slope2
Ry λ

where the slope1 and slope2 just correspond to the D2 v/s N plot for X and
Y axis respectively. Substituting the values
1.157 × 10−2
σ= = 0.838
1.38 × 10−2
and for the 300g weight
1.1374 × 10−2
σ= = 0.8259
1.377 × 10−2
Here too we get both the Poisson ratios to be very close to each other.
However both are wrong as the Poisson ratio is supposed to be in the range
of -1 to 0.5. The Young’s modulus calculated using the plano convex lens
comes close to the accepted range of the value given for glass. So, an
incorrect Poisson ratio would mean that it is due to the readings taken over
the Y axis of the interference pattern. As the bending of the glass slab in
the transverse direction is very small compared to the bending in the
longitudinal direction, it is difficult to say that with the given preciseness of
the experiment, we will be able to measure the Poisson ratio very correctly.
Also, one more problem using the plano-convex lens was that I could not
exacly identify the two sets of perpendicular axis about which we should
make the measurements because of the circular symmetry of the
interference rings.
The Young’s modulus calculated using both the methods are not close to
each other.

9
5.2 Some other points to discuss
• The diffraction pattern is observable even with naked eyes. If you
observe the pattern formed on the air film at different angles in naked
eye, you see that the pattern expands or contracts. This is because a
thin film interference pattern you see depends on the angle at what
you view the pattern.
• The diffraction pattern blinks or sways slowly especially when the
loads are disturbed. The changes are more prominently seen at the
center of the diffraction pattern because the air film enclosed at the
center is smaller and any change in the thickness of the air film due to
the disturbances account to a pretty large fraction of the thickness
changing. For the same reason, as the thickness of the airfilm
increases outwards from the center, any small change in the thickness
due to disturbance won’t be very observable. We can also observe
that when we switch to the plano convex lens, the blinking
dramatically is reduced in this scenario. This is because the convex
lens and the glass slab now can enclose an air film of higher thickness
in comparison to the glass slide and the glass slab.
• The isotropicity of the glass material used could have been verified by
using this experiment. If we were provided two glass slabs, where
both the rectangular slabs were cut from the same glass slab but in
two perpendicular directions, we could have done the experiment for
both the slabs and compared the Young’s modulus. However, we are
checking for the isotropicity in only one direction. Perhaps, the
experiment can be likewise extended from here.
• For some material which has a smaller Young’s modulus, we may use
diffraction method to find the Poisson’s ratio of such material. If we
keep some material, say a rectangular bar of rubber in contact with
some metal surface such that the rubber is in complete contact with
the metal and light does not pass through in between them. We may
stretch it now and shine a laser through the middle of the gap formed
between the rubber and the metal to determine the change in the
width of the rubber bar. And by measuring the change in length of
the rubber bar using normal methods, we may calculate Poisson’s
ratio. We have to make an approximation that the slit formed is
parallel.
• More readings for this experiment can be got either by changing the
weights being hanged or by changing the distance of the point of

10
suspension from the knife edge as it is the torque which is producing
the bend in the glass beam.

11
The plots

1.5
y(x)
"x250"
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2
Figure 1: DN (x) v/s N plot for 250g.

10
y(x)
"y250"

4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2
Figure 2: DN (y) v/s N plot for 250g.

12
0.9
y(x)
"x300"

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2
Figure 3: DN (x) v/s N plot for 300g.

10
y(x)
"y300"

4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2
Figure 4: DN (y) v/s N plot for 300g.

13
 8
y(x)
"convx250"

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2
Figure 5: DN (x) v/s N plot for 250g (plano-convex lens). The Y axis has a
−2
scale of 10

10
y(x)
"convy250"

3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2
Figure 6: DN (y) v/s N plot for 250g (plano-convex lens). The Y axis has a
−2
scale of 10

14
 8
y(x)
"convx300"

1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2
Figure 7: DN (x) v/s N plot for 300g (plano-convex lens). The Y axis has a
−2
scale of 10

10
y(x)
"convy300"

3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2
Figure 8: DN (y) v/s N plot for 300g (plano-convex lens). The Y axis has a
−2
scale of 10

By comparing the above plots, we can easily point out that the best fit line
is much closer to the data points when we used the plano-convex lens than
what we got when we used the glass plate. This indicates the increased
precision which we got by using a plano-convex lens where we could enclose
a larger air film between the glass slab and the plano-convex lens.

15
6 Error Analysis
6.1 Propagation of errors
Young’s modulus

12(m1 − m2 )gl 1
Y = × 1 1
bd3 sλ ρx
− ρ2x (s)
1 (s)

s
∆Y ∆l 2 ∆b ∆d 2 ∆x 2
= ( ) + ( )2 + (3 ) +( )
Y l b d x
where
1 1
1 ∆( slope1 − slope2
)
x= 1 1 = 1 1
ρx
− ρ2x (s) slope1
− slope2
1 (s)

∆slope1 1 ∆slope2 1
slope1 slope1
+ slope2 slope2
= 1 1
slope1
− slope2

I used the slopes of the best fits of the data and am using the slope error as
given by the gnuplot program.
s
∆Y 0.1 2 0.01 2 0.001 2
= ( ) +( ) + (3 ) + (0.0999)2 = 0.1007
Y 14.55 4.98 0.286
which gives a propagation error percentage of 10.07%
For the plano convex lens, only the ∆x
x
term changes and
0.0064 0.0102
∆x 2 + 1.1751 2
( ) = ( 1.1374
1 1 ) = .03979
x 1.1374
− 1.1751
s
∆Y 0.1 2 0.01 2 0.001 2
= ( ) +( ) + (3 ) + 0.03979 = 0.1998
Y 14.55 4.98 0.286
which gives an error percentage of 19.98% Poisson’s ratio
Rx
σ=
Ry
v
u ∆Rx 2 ∆Ry 2
u
∆sigma
= t +
sigma Rx Ry
For the glass plate case of the experiment,

16
For 250g,
∆σ √
= 0.012 + 0.0682 = 0.06873
σ
For 300g,
∆σ √
= 0.00152 + 0.06782 = 0.0678
σ
For the plano-convex lens part of the experiment,
For 250g,
∆σ √
= 0.01022 + 0.02252 = 0.0247
σ
For 300g,
∆σ √
= 0.00642 + 0.02452 = 0.0253
σ

6.2 Percentage error

As the value for Young’s modulus in the literature is given as to belong to a
range, it is superfluous to calculate percentage error for this case.

6.3 Sources of error

1. While using the plano concave lens, it is a difficulty in identifying the
exact set of perpendicular axes about which the measurements are to
be taken.
2. We mark the center of the glass slab and the glass plate but we
cannot be sure whether we are placing the centers of the slab and the
plate exactly at the center of the knife edges because we do not have
a center point marked between the knife edges for reference. Perhaps
I could have marked the center point between the knife edges myself.
It would be a good idea to mark the center here by placing a needle
or something similar. If the center is marked too away from the glass
plate, due to parallax it won’t be of much use.
3. Large propagation of errors calculated for calculating Young’s
modulus.

7 Conclusion and remarks

7.1 Some observations
• I do not quite understand the utility of the condenser (focussing lens)
placed between the sodium lamp and the travelling microscope. Even

17
 without this condenser, we observe fringes with the same clarity and
brightness. Most probably, the lamp has a condenser in built to it.

The Young’s modulus of the glass beam found by Cornu’s method using
glass plate was found to be 122.8 ± 12.4 GP a and using a plano convex lens
was found to be 44.13 ± 8.82. The Poisson ratio of the glass beam using a
glass plate was found to be 0.1125 ± 0.0077 and 0.1114 ± 0.0075 for the
weight of 250g and 300g respectively. The Poisson ratio of the glass beam
using a plano convex lens was found to be 0.838 ± 0.0206 and
0.8259 ± 0.0209 for the weight of 250g and 300g respectively. The Poisson
ratio found using the plano convex lens should be discarded as the value
obtained is greater than 0.5. Thus the experiment failed for this part and
very different values of Young’s modulus were obtained for the different
parts of the experiment. The value obtained using a plano convex lens falls
into the accepted range of values of 50-90Gpa [2]. However the value
obtained using a glass plate is quite far from this accepted value. Perhaps,
the reason is that using a plano-convex lens allowed us to get better values
for the positions of the fringes because the fringes were more sharp in this
case.

8 Bibliography
1. The Feynman lectures on Physics

2. www.wikipedia.com

18