Content

1. Introduction 02

2. Theory 03-04

3. Apparatus & Accessories 05-06

4. Procedure 07

5. Final Result 08

6. Discussion 09

7. Conclusion 10

8. Questions 10-12

9. Experimental Data 13-14

10. Data Analysis 15-17

11. Error Analysis 18-22

Figure Content

Figure 2.1: Schematic diagram of the experiment set up 2

Figure 3.1: G Clamp 5

Figure 3.2: Metal Beam 5

Figure 3.3: Wooden Meter Ruler 5

Figure 3.4: Stop Watch 5

Figure 3.5: Screw gauge 5

Figure 3.6: vernier calliper 5

1|Page
 01. INTRODUCTION

Young’s Modulus is a measure of the stiffness of a material. It’s a numerical constant. It

defines the relationship between stress and strain in a material. Young’s Modulus is
named after the 19th century English physician and physicist Thomas Young.

Young’s Modulus is a very useful parameter in selecting suitable material for application
in civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.

Young’s modulus has units of pressure. Its SI unit is Nm-2 while in the c.g.s. unit system
it is measure in Dynes cm-2. The aim of this experiment is to investigate the factors that
affect the period oscillation of a cantilever. And determine the Young’s modulus of
difference material of the beam of loaded cantilever by measuring the period of
vibration.

2|Page
 2. THEORY

Figure 2.1. Schematic diagram of the experiment set up.

The depression s due to a load W (= Mg) at the end of a cantilever of length l is given by

𝑊𝑙 3
s=
3𝐼𝐸
Where l = projection of the vibrating length of the loaded beam,

I = moment of inertia of cross section of the beam about the neutral axis,

E = Young’s modulus of the material of the beam.

This strain causes internal stresses which produce a restoring force equal to

3𝐼𝐸𝑠
s=
𝑙3
When the cantilever is displaced to produce vertical oscillations and if the acceleration
of the load is s̈ , under the assumption that the beam is weightless, it is possible to write
3𝐼𝐸
𝑀s̈ = s
𝑙3

3𝐼𝐸
s̈ + .s = 0
𝑀𝑙3

Hence the motion is simple harmonic and the periodic time T is given by

3|Page
 𝑀𝑙 3
𝑇 = 2π√
3𝐼𝐸

𝑀𝑙 3
𝑇 2 = 4𝜋 2
3𝐼𝐸
For a beam of rectangular section

𝑏𝑑 3
𝐼=
12
Hence by plotting T2 against l3, a straight line graph should result. From the gradient m of
this graph, the value of E should be obtained by

16𝜋 2 𝑀
𝐸=
𝑏𝑑 3 𝑚
The above treatment assumes the beam to be weightless. A more complete treatment
taking into account the mass M’ of the vibrating length of the beam gives

33 3
√(𝑀 + 140 𝑀′ )𝑙
𝑇 = 2π
3𝐼𝐸
33
16𝜋 2 (𝑀 + 140 𝑀′ )𝑙 3
𝐸=
𝑏𝑑 3 𝑇 2
In case of metal beams the correcting term is significant, but for wood it is small.

4|Page
03. APPARATUS & ACCESSORIES

Figure 3.1: G Clamp Figure 3.2: Metal Beam

Figure 3.3: Wooden meter Ruler

Figure 3.4: Stop Watch

Figure 3.6: Vernier Calliper

Figure 3.5: Screw gauge

5|Page
Experiment 1
 Wooden meter rule with a weight attached to one end
 G clamp
 Micro meter screw gauge
 Vernier calliper
 Stop watch

Experiment 2
 Metal beam with a weight attached to one end
 G clamp
 Micro meter screw gauge
 Vernier calliper
 Stop watch

6|Page
 04. PROCRDURE

1. The end of the meter rule was clamped firmly to the edge of the bench by the G
clamp with a definite length l projection from it. The load (M = 200g) affixed to
the rule should be such as to cause but a small depression.

2. The rule was vibrated and obtained the periodic time T by timing 20 vibrations.

3. The experiment was repeated to find T for various values of l and was plotted a
graph of T2 against l3.

4. The thickness (d) of the beam was measured from an average of at least five
screw – gauge reading was taken at different points along the rule and the width
(b) at some points.

5. The Young’s modulus (E) of the wood of the meter rule was determined from
equation [1].

1. The metal beam at the 10cm mark was clamped firmly to the edge of the bench
by the G clamp. The mass of the beam was 400g and for beam of uniform cross
section, it may be assumed to be proportional to the beam’s length. The load
(M = 500g) affixed to the rule should be such as to cause but small depression.

2. The beam was vibrated ad obtained the periodic time T by timing 20 vibrations.

3. The thickness (d) of the beam was measured from an average of at least five
screw – gauge readings taken at different points along the beam and the width
(b) at some points.

4. The Young’s modulus (E) of the metal of the beam, was determined from
equation [2].

7|Page
 05. FINAL RESULTS

 Gradient of the graph (m) = 5.84210-7 s2cm-3

 Young’s modulus of the wooden beam = 1.4771011 Dynes cm-2 (1.4771010Nm-2)

 Young’s modulus of the iron beam = 1.7501011 Nm-2

8|Page
 06. DISCUSSION

1st step was done with meter ruler affixed weight at end. When calculating E of rule we put
l3 for the equation because when measuring it must be accurate measurement. So when
measuring length of the rule, the rule must horizontally. The method for finding the Young’s
modulus of a thin beam is from frequency analysis of a cantilever beam. A straight,
horizontal cantilever beam under a vertical load will deform into a curve. When this force is
removed, the beam will return to its original shape; however, its inertia will keep the beam
in motion. In this experiment 20 vibrations count by just watching instead of using special
mechanism because of that the measurement not accurate as expect. So using a digital
device or something to measure time to 20 oscillations will increase the accurate.

In this experiment the assuming mass of meter rule very small value and it was neglected
because of that the final answer is not accurate as much as expect. So including the mass to
calculations can increase the accurate of final answer.

The second step was done with metal beam affixed weight at end. In the calculations the
iron beam was assumed as uniform but when getting thickness and width of multiple points
the values had some differences. So there is some error on mass of the beam that got to
calculations.

The graph contains with the T2 against l3. So have to find T for various values of l. Then find
the gradient of the graph and use equation [1] to find value of young’s modulus.

9|Page
 07. CONCLUSION

Young’s modulus is a measure of the stiffness of a material. Wooden beam and iron beam
had differences Young’s modulus. Iron beam has higher Young’s modulus than the
wooden beam.

08. QUESTIONS
1. Define the quantity ‘Young’s Modulus’ of a material in terms of longitudinal
stress (force per unit area) and longitudinal strain (change in length per unit
length).
𝐹 ∆𝐿
=𝐸
𝐴 𝐿

𝐹
– Force per unit area
𝐴

∆𝐿 – Change in length
𝐿 – Initial length
𝐸 – Young’s Modulus

2. Comment on the extent to which your results support the relationship between
T and l.
4𝜋 2 𝑀
𝑇2 = ( ) 𝑙3
3𝐼𝐸

𝑦 = 𝑚. 𝑥

T2 and l3 has a linear relationship.

3. In these experiments, the cantilever had been set up by attaching some weight
to the vibrating end of a beam. Give a reason for this.

10 | P a g e
 If there is no weight attached to the end of the beam, moment of inertia
is low and the vibrating speed is higher. When the weight is attached to
the end of the beam it will give raise the inertia of the beam and because
of that vibrating speed will be reduce. Therefore 20 vibrations can easily
counted.

4. What would you observe when the vibrating length of a beam is made very
short?

When the vibrating length becomes short it will reduce inertia of the
beam and vibrating speed will increase. Therefore the periodic time
reduces and it’s hard to count 20 vibrations.

5. In these experiments, the thickness of each beam was obtained as the average
of a number of measurements, whereas the breadth of the beam was obtained
from a single measurement. Give a reason for this.
16𝜋 2 𝑀
𝐸= 𝑏𝑑3 𝑚

When calculating Young’s Modulus by using this above equation,

thickness has 3rd power part and breadth has single power part. Therefore
thickness should need measure very accurately than breadth. For that
average number of measurements was taken for thickness of the beam.

11 | P a g e
 6. Suppose this experiment was repeated using an iron beam having identical
dimensions. But the initial reading observed, while unloading, was not the
same as of loading the mass. Explain this briefly.
If the beam passed the elastic limit while loading, then it will never come
to the initial point when unloading.

7. Would there be any change in the measured values of Young’s Modulus, if the
experiment was repeated in an environment of 100 0C?
Yes, in 100 0C breadth and thickness measurements will be higher than
the normal temperature. Young’s Modulus will get a low value in 1000C.

8. Suppose a student wanted to determine the relationship between T and l of a

vibrating cantilever empirically. For this he assumed the relationship of the
form T = kln, where n is some constant. By plotting a suitable graph from data
given in Table 1.2, show how he could determine the value of n.

𝑇 = 𝑘𝑙 𝑛

Taking log on both sides,

log 𝑇 = log 𝑘𝑙 𝑛

log 𝑇 = log 𝑘 + 𝑛 log 𝑙

Y= mx + c

n is given by the gradient of the graph.

12 | P a g e
 09. EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Minimum reading of screw gauge = 0.01mm (±0.005mm)

Minimum reading of vernier = 0.02mm (±0.01mm)

Experiment [1]

Dimensions of the wooden beam

Table 1.1 Thickness measurements of the wooden beam

Measurement Thickness(screw gauge), d
± 0.0005 𝑐𝑚
1 0.5210
2 0.5190
3 0.5250
4 0.5230
5 0.5240
Average Value 0.5224 ± 0.0002 cm

Breath (vernier) of the wooden beam, b = 2.570 ± 0.001 cm

Table 1.2: Measurements of period of vibrations of the wooden beam.

Length, l (cm) Time for 20 Periodic l3 (cm3) T2 (s2)
± 0.05 vibrations (s) time, T (s)
+ 0.01 ± 0.0005
90.000 14.91 0.7455 729 (± 1.215) × 103 0.5557 (±0.0007)
80.000 13.66 0.6830 512 (± 0.960) × 103 0.4665 (±0.0007)
70.000 12.10 0.6050 343 (± 0.735)× 103 0.3660 (±0.0006)
60.000 10.06 0.5030 216 (± 0.540) × 103 0.2530 (±0.0005)
50.000 08.40 0.4200 125 (± 0.375) × 103 0.1764 (±0.0004)

13 | P a g e
Experiment [2]

Dimensions of the iron beam

Table 2.1: Thickness measurements of iron beam

Measurement Thickness, d
± 0.0005 cm
1 0.4240
2 0.4210
3 0.4200
4 0.4210
5 0.4270
Average Value 0.4226 ± 0.0002

Breadth of the iron beam, b = 1.2630 ± 0.001 cm

Mass of the iron beam = 400 ± 1 g
Time for 20 oscillations = 12.71 + 0.01 s
Period, T = 0.6355 ± 0.0005 s

Table 2.2: measurements of period of vibrations of the iron beam

Length, Time for 20 Periodic time, l3 (cm3) T2 (s2)
l (cm) vibrations (s) T (s) ± 0.0005
+ 0.01
90.00 12.71 0.6355 729.0 (±1.215) × 103 0.4039 (±0.0006)

14 | P a g e
 10. DATA ANALYISIS

Gravity point = ( 𝑥̅ , 𝑦̅ )
729000 + 512000 +343000+216000+125000
𝑥̅ =
5

𝑥̅ = 385000 𝑐𝑚3

0.5557+0.4665+0.3660+0.2530+0.1764
𝑦̅ =
5

𝑦̅ = 0.36352 s2
Gravity point = (385000, 0.3635)

Finding gradient of the graph (m)

𝑦1 − 𝑦2
m=
𝑥1 − 𝑥2

(0.5372 − 0.2402) 𝑠 2
m = (681.8
−173.4)103 𝑐𝑚3

m = 5.84210-7 s2cm-3

𝑏𝑑 3
For a beam of rectangular section I =
12
2.570(0.5224)3
I =
12
I = 0.0305 cm4

15 | P a g e
Young’s modulus E of the wooden beam

E ……………….. [1]

162 200𝑔
E=
2.570𝑐𝑚(0.5224)3 𝑐𝑚3 5.84210−7 𝑐𝑚 −3 𝑠 2

= 1.4771011 Dynes cm-2 (1.4771010Nm-2)

16 | P a g e
Experiment [2]
Mass of the iron beam which was used (M’’) (M’’) = 0.9 M’

M’’ = 360g ± 0.9g

For an iron beam of rectangular section:

𝑏𝑑 3
I=
12
1.2630(0.4226)3
I=
12

𝐼 = 0.0079 cm4

According to equation [2]

33 ′ 3
162 (𝑀+ 𝑀 )𝑙
140
E=
𝑇 2 𝑏𝑑 3

33
162 (500𝑔+ 360𝑔)(90𝑐𝑚)3
140
E=
(0.6355𝑠)2 1.2630𝑐𝑚(0.4226𝑐𝑚)3

E = 1.7501011 Nm-2

17 | P a g e
 11. ERROR ANALYSIS

Experiment [1]
Uncertainty in the average value of the quantity’s’ for the wooden beam;

(𝛿𝑑) = ± 0.0002 𝑐𝑚

Uncertainty of T;

Uncertainty of graph points;

𝑦 = 𝑇2(s) 𝑥 = 𝑙3(cm)

(𝛿𝑦) 2 = (2𝑇) 2 (0.0005 𝑠) 2 (𝛿𝑥) 2 = (3𝑙2)2 (0.05 𝑐𝑚) 2

(𝛿𝑦) = ± (2𝑇 × 0.0005) 𝑠2 (𝛿𝑥) = ± (3𝑙2 × 0.05) 𝑐𝑚3

18 | P a g e
(𝛿𝑦) ;

(𝛿𝑦1) = ± 20.74550.0005 𝑠2

= ± 0.0007 𝑠2

(𝛿𝑦2) = ± 20.68300.0005 𝑠2

= ± 0.0007 𝑠2

(𝛿𝑦3) = ± 20.60500.0005 𝑠2

= ± 0.0006 𝑠2

(𝛿𝑦4) = ± 20.50300.0005 𝑠2

= ± 0.0005 𝑠2

(𝛿𝑦5) = ± 20.41500.0005 𝑠2

= ± 0.00004 𝑠2

(𝛿𝑥) ;

(𝛿𝑥1) = ±3 (90)2 0.05 𝑐𝑚3

= ± 1215 𝑐𝑚3

(𝛿𝑥2) = ±3 (80)2 0.05 𝑐𝑚3

= ± 960 𝑐𝑚3

(𝛿𝑥3) = ±3 (70)2 0.05 𝑐𝑚3

= ± 735 𝑐𝑚3

(𝛿𝑥4) = ±3 (60)2 0.05 𝑐𝑚3

= ± 540 𝑐𝑚3

(𝛿𝑥5) = ±3 (50)2 0.05 𝑐𝑚3

= ± 375 𝑐𝑚3

19 | P a g e
Uncertainty of gradient (m) = δm;
1 1
(𝛿𝑚)2 = ∑ 𝜎2
∆ 𝑖

2
1 𝑥𝑖2 𝑥𝑖
∆ = (∑ 2 ) (∑ 2 ) − (∑ 2 )
𝜎𝑖 𝜎𝑖 𝜎𝑖

∆=0

1 1
(m) 2 = ∑ =0
∆ 𝜎2

Uncertainty of I;
𝑏𝑑 3
I =
12

12
(𝛿𝐼) 2 = 12 [(d3)2 (b) 2+ (3d2b) 2 (d) 2]

12
(𝛿𝐼) 2 = 12 [(0.52243)2 (0.001) 2+ (30.522422.570) 2 (0.0002) 2]

(𝛿𝐼) = ± 0.00001cm4

Uncertainty of E;

𝜕𝐸 2 𝜕𝐸 2 𝜕𝐸 2
(𝛿𝐸)2 = ( ) (𝛿𝑏) + ( ) (𝛿𝑑) + ( ) (𝛿𝑚)2
2 2
𝜕𝑏 𝜕𝑑 𝜕𝑚
2
−16𝜋 2 𝑀 −48𝜋 2 𝑀
(𝛿𝐸)2 = ( ) (0.001 𝑐𝑚) 2
+ ( ) (0.0002 𝑐𝑚)2
𝑚𝑏 2 𝑑 3 𝑏𝑑 4 𝑚

20 | P a g e
Experiment [2]
Uncertainty in the average value of the quantity “d” for the iron beam;

(𝛿𝑑) = ± 0.0002 𝑐𝑚

Uncertainty of mass of the iron beam;

𝑀′′ = 0.9 𝑀′

= (0.9)2 (1 𝑔) 2

(𝛿𝑀′′) = ± 0.9 𝑔

12
(𝛿𝐼) 2 = 12 [(d3)2 (b) 2+ (3d2b) 2 (d) 2]

12
(𝛿𝐼) 2 = 12 [(0.42263)2 (0.001) 2+ (30.422621.2630) 2 (0.0002) 2]

= ± 0.00001 cm4

21 | P a g e
 Uncertainty of Young’s Modulus (E) = δE

𝜕𝐸 2 𝜕𝐸 2 𝜕𝐸 2
(𝛿𝐸)2 = ( ) (𝛿𝑙) + ( ) (𝛿𝑏) + ( ) (𝛿𝑑)2
2 2
𝜕𝑙 𝜕𝑏 𝜕𝑑
2 2
𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝐸 / 2
+ ( ) (𝛿𝑇)2 + ( ) (𝛿𝑀 )
𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑀/
2
33 33
16𝜋 2 (𝑀 + 140 𝑀/ ) 3𝑙 2 16𝜋 2 (𝑀 + 140 𝑀/ ) 𝑙 3
(𝛿𝐸)2 = ( ) (𝛿𝑙)2 + ( ) (𝛿𝑏)2
𝑏𝑑3 𝑇 2 𝑏2𝑑3𝑇 2
2
33
16𝜋 2 (𝑀 + 140 𝑀/ ) 3𝑙 3
+( ) (𝛿𝑑)2
𝑏𝑑 4 𝑇 2
2
33
16𝜋 2 (𝑀 + 140 𝑀/ ) 2𝑙 3
+( ) (𝛿𝑇)2
𝑏𝑑 3 𝑇 3
2
33
16𝜋 2 (140) 𝑙 3
/ 2
+( ) (𝛿𝑀 )
𝑏𝑑3 𝑇 2

2
16𝜋 2 𝑙 2 33 / 2 2 𝑙 2 3𝑙 2
(𝛿𝐸)2 = ( 3 2 ) {(𝑀 + 𝑀 ) (3 (𝛿𝑙) + ( ) (𝛿𝑏) + ( ) (𝛿𝑑)2
2 2
𝑏𝑑 𝑇 140 𝑏 𝑑
2
2𝑙 33𝑙 2
+ ( ) (𝛿𝑇)2 ) + (𝛿𝑀/ ) }
𝑇 140

2
16𝜋 2 (90 𝑐𝑚)2
(𝛿𝐸)2 =( ) {(500 𝑔
1.2630 𝑐𝑚𝑥(0.4226 𝑐𝑚)3 (0.6355 𝑠)2
2
33 90 𝑐𝑚 2
+ 360 𝑔) (32 (0.05 𝑐𝑚)2 + ( ) (0.001 𝑐𝑚)2
140 1.2630𝑐𝑚
3𝑥90 𝑐𝑚 2 2
2𝑥90 𝑐𝑚 2
+( ) (0.0002𝑐𝑚) + ( ) (0.0005 𝑠)2 )
0.4226 𝑐𝑚 0.6355 𝑠
33𝑥90 𝑐𝑚 2
+( ) (0.9 𝑔)2 }
140

𝛿𝐸 = 4.95 x 109 Dynes cm-2

22 | P a g e
 12. REFERENCES

 Lab sheet – GPL124x – Determination of Young’s modulus from the period of

vibration of a loaded cantilever, PH-1020 – GENERAL PHYSICS LABORATORY1,
Department of Physics, University of Colombo

 www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus

23 | P a g e