The Relationship between Thickness and Elasticity in a Cantilever

Introduction

My Internal Assessment was inspired by the sport fencing, there are three types; saber, epee and foil
which will be explained concisely in the background information section.

Last year I took part in a fencing competition and wound up in third place, so I decided to analyse my
shortcomings by learning the mechanics of fencing, starting out with an observation I made while
watching the senior saber players, they created a “swishing” wave motion with their sword that I, a
foil and part time epee player wasn’t able to replicate. I initially played it off as something that you
need practice to do. Recently I have been thinking about whether it was the elasticity of the sword
that deterred the motion.

This got me thinking about the elasticity of the sword, my initial study developed in this manner until
I realized that I could not measure the stiffness of the sword because of its varying cross sectional
areas which will increase towards the base or bell guard.

So I have used steel rulers instead of the sword because of the uniform cross sectional area, I decided
to apprehend the effect of thickness on the modulus of the object, this way I could connect it to my
original idea;

How the elastic modulus of a material corresponds to changes in thickness of a cantilever beam made
of said material?

Background Information and Theory

I took the following pictures from the standard fencing stance. These values (rounded off to the
nearest 0.5 cm) aren’t used in the calculations but put forward for better understanding.

Saber is the more flexible sword of the

three, the game works on the principle of
speed, for the fencer to score a point he
or she must jab anywhere in the upper
body.

A foil fencer is popularly known for being able to easily

transit between epee and saber, it acts like a medium
between them. The game is concentrated on jabs in the
torso of the fencer.

Epee as you can see is the least flexible

and took much struggle to bend further,
epee is the full body game, the fencer
can score by jabbing at any point of the
body.
Hooke’s law states that the stress is directly proportional to strain produced. It is mathematically
expressed as

𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 ∝ 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝑘 (𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛)
Where k is a constant is known as modulus of elasticity. There are three types of modulus, Namely,
Young’s modulus, Bulk modulus, and rigidity modulus.

Young’s modulus is defined as the ration between linear stress and 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
linear strain. 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 =
𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
Linear strain is defined as the ratio between change in length and 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 =
original length. 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

The linear stress is defined as the force acting per unit length. 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 =
𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
I considered the system to be oscillating and tried to integrate the
principles of simple harmonic motion into this experiment
using the basic cantilever equation; 1

𝐹𝐿
𝛿 represents the beam deflection length 𝛿=
3𝐸𝐼
𝐹 represents the force applied on the end of the beam

𝐿 represents the length of the beam

𝐸 represents the young’s modulus

𝐼 represents the area moment of Inertia

We can then redefine 𝐼 through the second moment of area theory for a rectangle with a geometrical
centre being the origin which would apply to the case of a scale;
𝑎𝑏 𝑎 being the width
𝐼=
12 b being the thickness
Then substitute 𝐼 into the beam deflection equation giving which can be
rearranged to give force 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 =
𝑑𝑝
𝑑𝑡
4𝐹𝐿
𝛿= 𝑑(𝑚𝑣)
𝐸𝑎𝑏 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 =
𝑑𝑡
𝐸𝑎𝑏 𝑑𝑣
𝐹= 𝛿 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑚
4𝐿 𝑑𝑡

According to Newton’s second law the rate of change of momentum is directly 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑀
𝑑 𝛿
proportional to force applied on the beam as seen in the box above; 𝑑𝑡

We can substitute the derivation of force in terms 𝑑 𝛿 𝐸𝑎𝑏

𝑀 + 𝛿=𝐹
of differentiation in the earlier equation; 𝑑𝑡 4𝐿

1
GertGert 18.5k55 gold badges3232 silver badges6464 bronze badges, & Chet MillerChet Miller 17.2k22 gold badges88 silver badges2828
bronze badges. (1967, February 01). Measuring young's modulus from simple harmonic motion with cantilever. Retrieved from
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274804/measuring-youngs-modulus-from-simple-harmonic-motion-with-cantilever
We then see that it is similar to the second order Where,
quadratic equation;
𝐸𝑎𝑏
𝜔 =
𝑑 𝛿 4𝑀𝐿
+𝜔 𝛿−𝑔 = 0
𝑑𝑡
2𝜋 𝐸𝑎𝑏
=
𝑇 4𝑀𝐿
Solution of the quadratic equation; 16𝜋 𝑀𝐿
𝐸=
𝑎𝑏 𝑇
𝑧(𝑡) = 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜔𝑡 + ∅)

Hypothesis

From popular young’s modulus experiments it is already well known that with decreased length, the
time period of oscillation decreases2. As for answering my research question, since every material
has the same elasticity, I expect the results would show that the material I have used as my
cantilever has the same modulus of elasticity since this is a geometric property of metal or ratio.

Variables

Independent Variables;

 Length of the scale oscillated

I varied the lengths; 100 cm, 90 cm, 80 cm, 70 cm and 60 cm below these values the oscillations were
extremely fast, making it quite hard to monitor every single oscillation. I used a slow motion camera
for the last 2 values (70 and 60 cm) to limit space for possible error.

It is in relation to fencing all three blade lengths are all of similar lengths, the ones that I had were all
an uniform 90 cm.

Since the IB disapproves of a double tiered experiment, I used the thickness as my main independent
variable, the length is used to further strengthen my evaluation of the effect of thickness on elasticity.

 Cross sectional area of the ruler/rulers

I varied the thicknesses of the material, this would make more sense in relation of my experiment to
fencing, each sword having its different cross sectional areas.

I doubled and tripled the original thickness, and used the lengths as a means of calculating the Young’s
modulus which should be constant for all three thicknesses.

Dependant variables

 Time period for the scale to vibrate up and down

Control Variables Explanation and Corrections

I made sure to get the exact same scales manufactured by the same company since
1. Material type the metal composition of the scales may otherwise be different which would gravely
impact the experimental data.
 I initially did not give much notice to the external factors during the experiment until
I observed during one of my first test that the scale started making a figure 8 motion
2. Wind when a strong breeze hit it.
I realised that it could deter my results so I kept the room which I conducted the
experiment closed off to external factors.

Though I needed duct tape (which would be better suited to withstand the
oscillations) to secure the weight on the scale and tape the scales together, it proved
3. Tape to be quite heavy so I used lightweight cello tape instead.
I even made sure to use the same amount of tape (25 cm) on each repetition of the
experiment so the ratio would be similar especially when calculating the Young’s
modulus value.

Materials

 1 metre steel rulers (3)  Weight hanger (50g)

 Screw Gauge (least count 0.01 mm)  G Clamp
 Vernier Calliper (least count 0.02 mm)  Tape
 Stop Clock
Procedure

1. Measuring the thickness of a scale; Risk Assessment; This is not a very

Instrument used: Vernier Calliper dangerous experiment, the only
Calculate the zero error and correction values. potential means of injury is if the
weights fall on the person
Take 5 Vernier Calliper readings of uniform points of the scale conducting the experiment or else if
(90 cm, 70 cm, 50 cm, 30 cm, 10 cm) and tabulate the scale becomes dislodged and
Then calculate uncertainty. acts as a catapult and launches the
weights. However, this is extremely
2. Measuring the breadth of the scale; unlikely and the methodology is
Instrument used: Screw Gauge ethical and poses no environmental
impacts what so ever.
Calculate the zero error and correction of the instrument

Take 5 Screw Gauge readings of uniform points along the side

of the scale (90 cm, 70 cm, 50 cm, 30 cm, 10 cm) and tabulate

Proceed to calculate the uncertainty.

3. Setting up the Experiment

Instruments used: G Clamp, Rulers, weight hanger and tape

Strap the 50-gram weight on the un-fixed end of the ruler using 25 cm of tape.

Then on a flat horizontal surface attach the G Clamp, at the 100 cm mark of the ruler tighten the
circular fixture on the clamping mechanism, securing the scale to the flat surface.

4. Calculating the Time Period

Instrument Used: Stop watch and Slow Motion Camera
Then the ruler is oscillated with a small force, since the ruler is drooping downwards I decided to raise
the ruler into equilibrium position and release it from there, to approximately keep the forces similar,
but since simple harmonic motion takes part in the equation, the amount of force will not be a factor
that impacts any change. Record the time taken for 20 oscillations at lengths 100 cm, 90 cm, 80 cm,
70 cm, 60 cm. I realised that from the penultimate number the oscillations got quicker and smaller;
making it hard to account for 20 oscillations so the last two lengths the time taken for 20 oscillations
is taken using a slow motion camera.

Calculate the time period by dividing the time taken for 20 oscillations by the number of oscillations.

Repeat this same step for all the lengths listed above.

5. Calculating Modulus of Elasticity;

Substitute the values found in step 1, 2 and 4 in the equation for the Elasticity Modulus.

6. Increase the thickness

Calculating Error
Instrument required: Scale and tape
At starting position;
Secure two scales together using a total amount of 25 cm of
tape (including the amount used for fixing the 50-gram weight). 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 99

Repeat steps 1 to 5. We can see that the error is negative

Secure an additional ruler to the two using the same 25 cm total 𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 =
𝑃𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑔𝑒
of tape and repeat steps 1 to 5. 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒

1 𝑚𝑚
Raw Data and Data Analysis =
100
Thickness of the Rulers = 0.01

I started out by measuring the thickness of the scale using a 𝑍𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = −(100 − 99)

screw gauge, to do that I placed the screw gauge and 5 different = −1 × 0.01
points on the scale/scales. This way I could makes sure that
= −0.01
throughout the length of the scale the it retained similar
thickness and find the average of them. I then calculated the When zero error
error as seen toward the right, I closed the clamp of the screw 𝑍𝑒𝑟𝑜 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.01
gauge until it was at 0 then took the head scale value. The error
was negative in nature.
Table.1a)i) Screw Gauge values of 1 Ruler

Serial No. of Pitch Circular Scale Total Reading Table.1a)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for Screw
Observations Scale Reading Gauge values for 1 Ruler
For 1 Ruler Reading Division Value Observed Corrected
(N) on the 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(mm) head × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝑡 𝑡 Reading Value
Scale (mm) =𝑁+𝑛 = 𝑡 +𝑐 𝑡 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
(n) × 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 1.21 0.03
(mm) (mm) Calculation 1.25 0.01
1 1 20 0.20 1.20 1.21 1.24 0
2 1 24 0.24 1.24 1.25 1.26 0.02
3 1 23 0.23 1.23 1.24 1.25 0.01
4 1 25 0.25 1.25 1.26 Average 1.24 0.014
5 1 24 0.24 1.24 1.25
Table.1b)i) Screw Gauge values of 2 Rulers

Serial No. of Pitch Circular Scale Total Reading Table.1b)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for
Observations Scale Reading Screw Gauge values for 2 Rulers
For 2 Rulers Reading Division Value Observed Corrected
(N) on the 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(mm) head × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝑡 𝑡 Reading Value
Scale (mm) =𝑁+𝑛 = 𝑡 +𝑐 𝑡 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
(n) × 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 2.52 0.01
(mm) (mm) Calculation 2.53 0
1 2 51 0.51 2.51 2.52 2.54 0.01
2 2 52 0.52 2.52 2.53 2.52 0.01
3 2 53 0.53 2.53 2.54 2.52 0.01
4 2 51 0.51 2.51 2.52 Average 2.53 0.032
5 2 51 0.51 2.51 2.52

Table.1c)i) Screw Gauge values of 3 Rulers

Serial No. of Pitch Circular Scale Total Reading Table.1c)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for
Observations Scale Reading Screw Gauge values for 3 Rulers
For 3 Rulers Reading Division Value Observed Corrected
(N) on the 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(mm) head × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝑡 𝑡 Reading Value
Scale (mm) =𝑁+𝑛 = 𝑡 +𝑐 𝑡 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
(n) × 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 3.82 0.01
(mm) (mm) Calculation 3.80 0.03
1 3 81 0.81 3.81 3.82 3.82 0.01
2 3 79 0.79 3.79 3.80 3.87 0.04
3 3 81 0.81 3.81 3.82 3.84 0.01
4 3 86 0.86 3.86 3.87 Average 3.83 0.02
5 3 83 0.83 3.83 3.84

Width of the scales

49 𝑀𝑆𝐷 = 50 𝑉𝑆𝐷
I repeated the procedure that I used with the screw gauge, I used the
Vernier Calliper to take 5 measurements along the length of the scale. 1 𝑀𝑆𝐷 = 1 𝑚𝑚
Going into this I expected the widths to be the same since I am only 49 𝑀𝑆𝐷
1 𝑉𝑆𝐷 =
changing the thickness by adding scales on top but I learned that the 50 𝑉𝑆𝐷
widths were varying by some means; I repeated this part twice and took = 0.98 𝑚𝑚
the values of the second test. I realised this difference would probably
𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 𝑀𝑆𝐷 − 𝑉𝑆𝐷
amount to a possible manufacturing error on the manufacturer’s side of
things. The Vernier Calliper I used, had no zero error, the value on the scale = 1 𝑚𝑚 − 0.98 𝑚𝑚
aligned to zero perfectly. = 0.02 𝑚𝑚

Table.2a)i) Vernier Calliper values of 1 Ruler

Serial No. of Main Vernier Scale Total Reading Table.2a)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for
Observations Scale Reading Vernier Calliper values for 1 Ruler
For 1 Ruler Reading Vernier Value Observed Corrected
(N) Division 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(cm) Coinciding × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝐷 𝐷 Reading Value
(n) (cm) =𝑁+𝑛 =𝐷 +𝑐 𝐷 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
× 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 3.35 0.01
(cm) (cm) Calculation 3.36 0.02
1 3.3 5 0.05 3.35 3.35 3.35 0.01
2 3.3 6 0.06 3.36 3.36 3.32 0.02
3 3.3 5 0.05 3.35 3.35 3.34 0
4 3.3 2 0.02 3.32 3.32 Average 3.34 0.01
5 3.3 4 0.04 3.34 3.34
Table.2b)i) Vernier Calliper values of 2 Rulers

Serial No. of Main Vernier Scale Total Reading Table.2b)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for
Observations Scale Reading Vernier Calliper values for 2 Rulers
For 2 Rulers Reading Vernier Value Observed Corrected
(N) Division 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(cm) Coinciding × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝐷 𝐷 Reading Value
(n) (cm) =𝑁+𝑛 =𝐷 +𝑐 𝐷 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
× 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 3.35 0
(cm) (cm) Calculation 3.34 0.01
1 3.3 5 0.05 3.35 3.35 3.35 0
2 3.3 4 0.04 3.34 3.34 3.34 0.01
3 3.3 5 0.05 3.35 3.35 3.37 0.02
4 3.3 4 0.04 3.34 3.34 Average 3.35 0.008
5 3.3 7 0.07 3.37 3.37

Table.2c)i) Vernier Calliper values of 3 Rulers

Serial No. of Main Vernier Scale Total Reading Table.2c)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for
Observations Scale Reading Vernier Calliper values for 3 Rulers
For 3 Rulers Reading Vernier Value Observed Corrected
(N) Division 𝑛 Reading Reading Total Uncertainty
(cm) Coinciding × 𝐿. 𝐶 𝐷 𝐷 Reading Value
(n) (cm) =𝑁+𝑛 =𝐷 +𝑐 𝐷 ± 𝑍. 𝐶
× 𝐿. 𝐶 Uncertainty 3.46 0
(cm) (cm) Calculation 3.47 0.01
1 3.4 6 0.06 3.46 3.46 3.44 0.02
2 3.4 7 0.07 3.47 3.47 3.45 0.01
3 3.4 4 0.04 3.44 3.44 3.47 0.01
4 3.4 5 0.05 3.45 3.45 Average 3.46 0.01
5 3.4 7 0.07 3.47 3.47

Time Period Calculations

The time period is one of the principal points of the experiment, I measured the time taken for my
beams to complete 20 oscillations, when the beam vibrated at shorter lengths it was too quick to
time the oscillations perfectly so I used a slow motion video, to be able to note the return to the
equilibrium position when I needed to conclude the 20th oscillation. I also conducted three trials and
found the time period using the average of the trials.

Additionally, I calculated a part of the equation derived above to enhance the effect of change in terms
of both Time period and length.

16𝜋 𝑀 𝐿
𝐸= ×
𝑎𝑏 𝑇

Table.3a)i) and Time Period values of 1 Ruler

S.No Of Time for 20 oscillations

𝐿
Observations Length (L) Time period(T)
Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Avg. 𝑇
for 1 Ruler
Unit X10-2cm s s s s s cm3s-2
1 100 21.84 21.02 21.17 21.34 1.07 878082.9
2 90 19.01 18.84 18.94 18.93 0.95 813741.2
3 80 16.22 16.26 16.29 16.26 0.81 774938
4 70 13.2 13.19 13.02 13.14 0.66 795030.4
5 60 10.84 10.07 10.43 10.45 0.52 791695.7
 Then I calculated the uncertainty for the three trials; Example for 1 Ruler; 100 cm

0.016
Uncertainty for Time Period %∆𝑇 = × 100
1.07
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 %∆𝑇 = 1.495
𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 20 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
= %∆𝑇 = 2 × 1.495
20
∆ 𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 20 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
± %∆𝑇 = 2.99
20
%∆𝑇 2.99
∆𝑇 = ×𝑇 ∆𝑇 = × 1.07
100 100

%∆𝑇 = 2 × %∆𝑇 ∆𝑇 = 0.34

∆𝑇
%∆𝑇 = × 100
𝑇

Table.3a)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for and Time Period values of 1 Ruler

Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20
oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations
100 cm (s) 90 cm (s) 80 cm (s) 70 cm (s) 60 cm (s)
Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc.
Trial 1 21.84 0.50 19.01 0.08 16.22 0.04 13.20 0.06 10.84 0.39
Trial 2 21.02 0.29 18.84 0.09 16.26 0 13.19 0.05 10.07 0.38
Trial 3 21.17 0.17. 18.94 0.01 16.29 0.03 13.02 0.12 10.43 0.02
Average 21.34 0.32 18.93 0.06 16.26 0.02 13.14 0.08 10.45 0.26
Time Period (s) 1.07 0.016 0.95 0.003 0.81 0.001 0.66 0.004 0.52 0.013
(Time Period)2 (s) 0.0341 0.90 0.006 0.66 0.002 0.43 0.005 0.27 0.014
1.14
Table.3b)i) and Time Period values of 2 Rulers

S.No Of Time for 20 oscillations

Length Time 𝑙
Observations
(l) Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Avg. period(T) 𝑇
for 2 Rulers
Unit X10-2cm s s s s s cm3s-2
1 100 19.82 19.85 19.72 19.80 0.99 1020648
2 90 17.52 17.59 17.41 17.51 0.88 951438.2
3 80 14.13 13.84 13.12 13.70 0.68 1091692
4 70 11.54 11.22 11.29 11.35 0.57 1065031
5 60 8.81 8.47 8.38 8.55 0.43 1180981
Table.3b)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for and Time Period values of 2 Rulers

Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20
oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations
100 cm (s) 90 cm (s) 80 cm (s) 70 cm (s) 60 cm (s)
Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc.
Trial 1 19.82 0.02 17.52 0.01 14.13 0.43 11.54 0.19 8.81 0.26
Trial 2 19.85 0.05 17.59 0.08 13.84 0.14 11.22 0.13 8.47 0.08
Trial 3 19.72 0.08 17.41 0.1 13.12 0.58 11.29 0.06 8.38 0.17
Average 19.8 0.05 17.51 0.06 13.7 0.38 11.35 0.13 8.55 0.17
Time Period (s) 0.99 0.0025 0.88 0.003 0.68 0.019 0.57 0.0065 0.43 0.0085
(Time Period)2 (s) 19.82 0.02 17.52 0.01 14.13 0.43 11.54 0.19 8.81 0.26
 Table.3c)i) and Time Period values of 3 Rulers

S.No Of Time for 20 oscillations

Length Time 𝑙
Observations
(l) Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Avg. period(T) 𝑇
for 3 Rulers
Unit X10-2cm s s S s s cm3s-2
1 100 18.94 18.65 18.82 18.80 0.94 1131333
2 90 16.66 16.33 16.43 16.47 0.82 1074545
3 80 13.48 13.53 13.14 13.38 0.67 1143408
4 70 10.96 10.9 11.04 10.97 0.55 1140788
5 60 8.94 7.92 8.37 8.41 0.42 1221580

Table.3c)ii) Uncertainty Calculations for and Time Period values of 3 Rulers

Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20 Time for 20
oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations oscillations
100 cm (s) 90 cm (s) 80 cm (s) 70 cm (s) 60 cm (s)
Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc. Value Unc.
Trial 1 18.94 0.14 16.66 0.19 13.48 0.1 10.96 0.01 8.94 0.53
Trial 2 18.65 0.15 16.33 0.14 13.53 0.15 10.9 0.07 7.92 0.49
Trial 3 18.82 0.02 16.43 0.04 13.14 0.24 11.04 0.07 8.37 0.04
Average 18.8 0.1 16.47 0.12 13.38 0.16 10.97 0.05 8.41 0.35
Time Period (s) 0.94 0.005 0.82 0.006 0.67 0.008 0.55 0.0025 0.42 0.0175
(Time Period)2 (s) 0.88 0.009 0.68 0.01 0.45 0.011 0.3 0.003 0.18 0.015

Graph of Results in Tables 3a, 3b and 3c;

The graph shows the relationship between the length cube (L 3) and time period square (T2), it includes
the error bars for the time period, fortunately which were quite small. The error bars denoted by a
capped vertical line is drawn on the graph but due to its impact in comparison to the y axis values
some of the lines appear to be black dots. The graphs are mostly linear, with an exception of 2 Rulers
which had a slight irregularity which seems to be compensated for by the relatively larger error bars
it has at the kinked point especially.

Relationship between L3 and T2

Series1 Series2 Series3
1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80
T2 (s2)

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
L 3(cm3)
 From the lines the slopes for the three beams have been calculated below; ∆𝑦
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 =
∆𝑥
𝑦 −𝑦
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 =
𝑥 −𝑥
1.14 − 0.43
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 =
1 − 0.343

∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = ∆𝑇 𝑎𝑡 1 𝑚 + ∆𝑇 𝑎𝑡 0.343 𝑚 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 1.080669711 𝑚 𝑇

Similarly
∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 0.034 + 0.005
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 1.00456621 𝑚 𝑇
∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 0.039
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 0.88288006088 𝑚 𝑇
∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 0.012 and ∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 0.012

Final calculation of Elastic Modulus by substituting experimental values Uncertainty for width and thickness in
into the equation derived above; meter for it to be better suitable for
Elastic Modulus Calculation
16𝜋 𝑀 1
𝐸= × 𝑎 ± ∆𝑎 (𝑚) = 3.34 × 10 ± 0.01
𝑎𝑏 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒
× 10
16𝜋 × 50 × 10 1
𝐸= × 𝑎 ± ∆𝑎 = 3.35 × 10 ± 0.008
3.34 × 10 × 1.24 × 10 1.080669711
× 10
𝐸 = 114.7321761 × 10 𝑁𝑚
𝑎 ± ∆𝑎 = 3.36 × 10 ± 0.01
Represented in Pascal the SI unit of the Young’s Modulus × 10
𝐸 = 114.7321761 𝐺𝑃𝑎

∆𝐸 = 1 × ∆𝑎 + 3 × ∆𝑏 + ∆𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑏 ± ∆𝑏 = 1.24 × 10 ± 0.014

× 10
∆𝐸 = 1 × (0.01 × 10 ) + 3 × (0.014 × 10 ) + 0.039
𝑏 ± ∆𝑏 = 2.53 × 10 ± 0.032
∆𝐸 = 0.039142
× 10

𝑏 ± ∆𝑏 = 3.83 × 10 ± 0.04 × 10

2 Scales 3 Scales
16𝜋 × 50 × 10 1 16𝜋 × 50 × 10 1
𝐸= × 𝐸= ×
3.35 × 10 × 2.53 × 10 1.00456621 3.36 × 10 × 3.83 × 10 0.88288006088
𝐸 = 14.48787852 × 10 𝑁𝑚 𝐸 = 4.737534922 × 10 𝑁𝑚

∆𝐸 = 0.01222 ∆𝐸 = 0.012196

The uncertainty is quite small and one could say negligible in comparison to the value of the elastic
modulus. Since the impact on the result is little to none, though I have calculated the value of the
uncertainty.
Conclusion & Evaluation
Though we see on the graph that the “effect of length on a cantilever” investigation is proved right
with the almost linear calculation however, the hypothesis for the thickness which is the core of my
investigation disagrees with the obtained result.

The elastic modulus varies with every additional ruler added on to make the cantilever. My results are
quite drastically different from my hypothesis substantial changes as seen with differences of
“109 𝑃𝑎" approximately between the “1 scale thickness” and the “3 scale thickness”. At first I was
completely destroyed, staring at my incomplete document with no idea what to do next.

On further research I came upon the term “isotropy” under a branch of physics called “material
science” which means that materials having identical properties independent of changes in
“direction of stress”3. This was my earlier hypothesis based on the fundamental knowledge of the
Young’s Modulus of a particular material being similar. When reading about isotropy, I was redirected
to a page on anisotropy, which seemed to match my experimental results. Anisotropy is when
materials have properties that change depending on the “direction of stress” that is being applied4.

Technically, the experiment I conducted should follow the parameters of a material which is isotropic
like most metals are. However, I failed to account for the changes I made which was by adding rulers
atop of each other instead of using an increased thickness of the same object. Two of the main
components in change of a metal from isotropy to anisotropy is “crystallographic texture” and
“distribution of second phases”. Since this experiment in no way meddles with the particle nature of
the cantilever, the only probable reasoning was changes in the second phase material.5

Upon further research, I realise that in adding a second ruler atop the first, I create a second phase
material, one that is different from the parent material, though the change isn’t molecular or alter
the microstructure of either material.

The table below shows the changes in Young’s Modulus when the crystallographic texture of a metal
is changed, unfortunately since in this case the second phase change is taken in a manner that causes
no microscopic changes.

In other words, when the scales are being taped on top there is no homogeneity in material, and since
they are not one metal as a whole, the scales act as sheets or layers, which when bending undergoes
a difficulty in transmitting force equally between the sheets.

This table serves as proof that the young’s modulus of a particular material can be changed due to
certain factors not limited to the commonly known variables; temperature.

3Rice, J. R. (2017, June 08). Mechanics of solids. Retrieved June/July, 2019, from
https://www.britannica.com/science/mechanics-of-solids/Basic-principles#ref77465
4 N. (2016, March 22). Anisotropy. Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anisotropy
5Hutchinson, B. (2015). Critical Assessment 16: Anisotropy in metals. Materials Science and Technology, 31(12), 1393-
1401. doi:10.1179/1743284715y.0000000118
The Young’s modulus found above (approximately 115 GPA) falls into the range of stainless steel.

How the elastic modulus of a material corresponds to changes in thickness of a cantilever beam
made of said material? The elastic modulus of the material corresponds to thickness in a manner
characteristic of an anisotropic metal, the material in this case is subject to the second phase property
which I exacted by increasing thickness through means of taping said materials of similar make-up
together.

Though I wasn’t able to relate this to my stimulus, in terms of fencing swords, my investigation
evolved over time and I uncovered an entirely new branch of physics, “Material Science” and
through massive amounts of research I learned quite a lot about the physics in microstructures and
how elasticity corresponds to it, much of which I didn’t include in the investigation.

Evaluation; I believe I took into account many of the possible weaknesses and provided a thorough
evaluation of my experiment through the document. This section summarises and adds to this;

Source of Possible Error and Significance & Evidence Improvements made or could be
effects made
Systematic Error
Ruler Deformation, if the ruler With each oscillation when the The scales used are of decent
stretches beyond its elastic equilibrium scale, which is a control thickness and during the
limit stated in hooks law, its variable is changes then this poses a experiment, I manually checked for
original shape may change huge difference in the results. apparent deformities which were
not visible.
Random Errors
Tape weight (addressed above)
Parallax Error in Oscillation, When the scales don’t fully complete To avoid this parallax error because
the oscillations had to be the 20 oscillations required the time of the inability to keep track of the
uniform in nature however period is not very precise, and since invisible equilibrium, set a manual
the equilibrium position the difference in time are quite small equilibrium as a starting point,
which should mark where the this could cause significant change in perpendicular to the surface is most
scale was timed to start and results. preferable and use a marker for
end. example a stable wooden scale to
show this equilibrium.
Manufacturing error of scales; The effect of this since the As addressed above, I used the
a scale being manufactured experiment works on the principle of average Vernier calliper and screw
with different thicknesses changing thickness it would create gauge results to avoid this.
throughout or different unwanted changed which would in
widths. turn alter results to not be precise.

Other Limitations; The formula was derived using this approximation this is valid only when 𝜃 is
small hence, the amplitude of the oscillations should be small; 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 = 𝜃
Bibliography
Suedam, V. M. (2016). Effect of cantilever length and alloy framework on the stress distribution in
peri-implant area of cantilevered implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Journal of applied
oral science : revista FOB.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274804/measuring-youngs-modulus-from-simple-
harmonic-motion-with-cantilever

Dorey, R. (2012). Microstructure–property relationships. Ceramic Thick Films for MEMS and Micro
devices, 85–112. doi:10.1016/b978-1-4377-7817-5.00004-3
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/second-phase

Newnham, Robert E. 2005. Properties of Materials: Anisotropy, Symmetry, Structure. New York:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198520751

Truszkowski, Wojciech. 2001. The Plastic Anisotropy in Single Crystals and Polycrystalline Metals.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. ISBN 0792368398

GertGert 18.5k55 gold badges3232 silver badges6464 bronze badges, & Chet MillerChet Miller
17.2k22 gold badges88 silver badges2828 bronze badges. (1967, February 01). Measuring young's
modulus from simple harmonic motion with cantilever. Retrieved from
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274804/measuring-youngs-modulus-from-simple-
harmonic-motion-with-cantilever

Rice, J. R. (2017, June 08). Mechanics of solids. Retrieved June/July, 2019, from
https://www.britannica.com/science/mechanics-of-solids/Basic-principles#ref77465

N. (2016, March 22). Anisotropy. Retrieved from

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anisotropy

Hutchinson, B. (2015). Critical Assessment 16: Anisotropy in metals. Materials Science and
Technology, 31(12), 1393-1401. doi:10.1179/1743284715y.0000000118

Books

Walker, J., Resnick, R., & Halliday, D. (2014). Halliday & Resnick fundamentals of physics (Tenth
edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.