Sources of Variation and Error – Lab 1

Mechanics of Materials Laboratory

AEM 251

NAME: Naser Alajmi

CWID: 11762165
Email: Nsalajmi1@crimson.ua.edu
September 4, 2019
 Page |2

C. Lab Procedure

Obtain an aluminum can. Note any obvious imperfections. Place the aluminum can
into the compression testing machine. The testing machine should be zeroed prior
to testing. Record the crush load. Repeat the experiment as specified by the
instructor.(Add/Remove Tables if necessary)

Specimen No Crushing Load(lbs)

1 87.14
2 73.17
3 72.29
4 65.35
5 85.56
6 70.68
7 92.09
8 79.32
9 130.3
10 93.04
11 68.47
12 71.02
13 84.97
14 125.76
15 85.06
16 120.07
17 72.36
18 119.03
19 107.37
20 104.68
21 83
22 115.15
23 93.18
24 84.54
25 81.04
26 80.72
27 123.07
28 78.43
29 87.13
30 89.7
31 102.46
32 82.31
33 83.69
 Page |3

34 75.14
35 85.98

D. Lab Report

1.0 Calculations

Complete the columns in order in the table below to compute the sample
mean, specimen variation, sample variance, and sample standard deviation.
(You may fill in these columns or print out similar columns using a
spreadsheet program.)

Be certain to use the appropriate number of significant digits.

Number of samples, n=35

2
x i(Crush Load)
(x i−x )(Deviation from ( x i−x ) (Squared
Mean) Deviation)
Crushing Load(lbs) deviation from mean squared deviation
87.14 -2.953428571 8.722740327
73.17 -16.92342857 286.4024346
72.29 -17.80342857 316.9620689
65.35 -24.74342857 612.2372575
85.56 -4.533428571 20.55197461
70.68 -19.41342857 376.8812089
92.09 1.996571429 3.986297469
79.32 -10.77342857 116.0667632
130.3 40.20657143 1616.568386
93.04 2.946571429 8.682283184
68.47 -21.62342857 467.5726632
71.02 -19.07342857 363.7956775
84.97 -5.123428571 26.24952033
125.76 35.66657143 1272.104317
85.06 -5.033428571 25.33540318
120.07 29.97657143 898.5948346
72.36 -17.73342857 314.4744889
119.03 28.93657143 837.325166
107.37 17.27657143 298.4799203
104.68 14.58657143 212.768066
 Page |4

83 -7.093428571 50.3167289
115.15 25.05657143 627.8317718
93.18 3.086571429 9.526923184
84.54 -5.553428571 30.8405689
81.04 -9.053428571 81.9645689
80.72 -9.373428571 87.86116318
123.07 32.97657143 1087.454263
78.43 -11.66342857 136.035566
87.13 -2.963428571 8.781908898
89.7 -0.393428571 0.154786041
102.46 12.36657143 152.9320889
82.31 -7.783428571 60.58176033
83.69 -6.403428571 41.00389747
75.14 -14.95342857 223.605026
85.98 -4.113428571 16.92029461

n n n
1
x= ∑ x i=3153.27 ∑ (x ¿¿ i−x)=4.2633 x 10−13 ∑ (x ¿¿ i−x )2=10699.5 ¿¿
n i =1 i =1 i=1

Average value ( ¿ mean value ) =90.09342857

n
Summationof deviations , ∑ (x i− x)=4.2633 x 10−13
i=1

2
Sample variance , s =314.69331735

Sample standard deviation , s=17.73959

 Page |5

2.0 Questions

Answer the following in complete sentences.

1. What are some sources of experimental error, and what are some sources
of sample population variation for the aluminum cans?

Calibration of the compression testing machine can be regarded as the

primary source of experimental error in the data analyzed above. Other
sources would include human error and random error.
On the other hand, the imperfections (on some of the cans) as well as the
differences in the sizes of the aluminum cans used for the experiment at
hand account for the sample population variation.

2. What do you estimate to be the maximum experimental error based on

the sources of experimental error listed above?

Human error can be regarded as the governing factor in this regarded as

the crushing of the cans was done by a person (the student) who had no
prior knowledge of such testing (though the whole testing procedure was
supervised by the lab assistant.)

3. Why is the sum of deviations zero or nearly zero? (Refer to column 2 of

the table.)

It is so because of the fact that concept of deviation is dependent on the

mean value. For the average value of a given data set, each value in the set
will exhibit a certain amount of deviation from that average value and the
sum of the deviation will be equal to zero. If it is not so, either there was
some mistake while calculating the deviation or the mean value calculated
was incorrect.

4. Is the estimated experimental error greater than the sample standard

deviation?

The otherwise is correct i.e. the sample standard deviation is much

greater than the experimental error.
 Page |6

5. What does it mean if the estimated experimental error is greater than the
sample standard deviation?

It is a good indicator of problems in the experimental method and that

adjustments are required. Other indications that can be deduced from the
said scenario include better selective control and too small size of
population.

6. How do your results compare with the historical data(historical data will
be provided by the Instructor)?

There exists a great difference between the two sets of data. In the
provided data set, the total number of data points in 19 whereas that in
our data points is 35. This will eventually lead to considerable difference
among the various parameters of the experiment including variance,
mean, standard deviation. However, the sum of deviation is nearly equal
to zero indicating that both of the data sets are credible.

3.0 Discussion of Results

In the experiment at hand, a successful investigation of the various statistical

parameters associated with the data obtained by crushing 35 aluminum cans
has been carried out. The data obtained was credible and the calculation of
no any parameter such as deviation, variance posed any problem.
However, it should be noted that the sample population did demonstrate
difference in the value of crushing loads. Note that the difference in sizes and
the imperfection in the composition of the cans were not the only ones
responsible for this. This is phenomenon that has contributed towards the
production of error in the results thus obtained.

The errors also played a significant role in producing considerable amount of

variation in the data. The experimental error (the lack of experience of the
performer, to be more specific) was responsible for this. Other types of errors
that have contributed towards the variation include random error (the type
of error that arises due to unknown reasons) and the instrumental error
(which is the error due to faulty in the testing apparatus). Overall, the
experiment can be regarded as a significance as the experimental error was
 Page |7

rather small. Another evidence of credibility of the experiment was that was
smooth calculation process. No ridiculously high or low value of any of the
designated parameters was obtained.