Dynamics Laboratory

Dr. Sangalola
By: Jamal Arif
Id Number: @00513037
Date: 2nd February 2018

Error analysis in experimental

studies

University of Salford
School of Computing, Science
& Engineering
Page 1

Contents

Cover page……………………………………………………
Contents……………………………………………………....1
1. Introduction………………………………………………..2
2. Methodology of trifilar system…………………………....2
3. Theory……………………………………………………...
I. Error analysis………………………………………..2-3
II. Dynamics of trifilar suspension…………………….4-5
III. Equations used………………………………………6
4. Apparatus…………………………………………………..7-8
5. Procedure…………………………………………………..8-9
6. Calculations and Results…………………………………..
I. Table of results……………………………………….9
II. Calculations…………………………………………..10-12
III. Notation………………………………………………13
7. Discussion…………………………………………………..13-14
8. Conclusion………………………………………………….14
9. References…………………………………………………..14
Page 2

Introduction
Scientists and Engineers are often required to perform experimental studies. Errors are always
produced in experimental data and therefore, experiments undergo error analysis to evaluate the
reliability of the results produced. As an example of error analysis, this experiment will include
a trifilar suspension pendulum which will be used to measure the moment of inertia (Second
moment of mass). Measurements will include the period of oscillation, mass of both the
rotating circular plate and the object, the length of the string and the radius of the circular plate.
The percentage errors of the measurements will be assessed and observed by comparing the
errors to the measurement values.
The moment of inertia will be calculated by timing 20 oscillations of the plate and also timing
20 oscillations of the plate and the object together. The parameters (mass, length of string, time
period, etc.) can be used to calculate the moments of inertia of the object which is placed on the
rotating plate. The estimated uncertainty in the moment of inertia is determined by combining
the estimated uncertainties in each measurement.

Methodology of Trifilar system

A circular plate is hung from three vertical wires, all attached to ends of the plate and have
equal spacing between them. An object is placed on the plate, with its centre of mass at the
centre of the plate. Then, the plate is twisted parallel to the horizontal axis and is released to
allow it to rotationally oscillate about the centre of mass. We will make the assumptions in this
experiment that: the system is completely controlled by simple harmonic motion, there is no
damping, the mass of the string is negligible and lastly, the strings and the plate are rigid and
inextensible.

Theory
I. Error Analysis
When we analyse errors in an experiment we focus on measurement uncertainties. The
measurements are shown with their corresponding uncertainties (Z + δ Z). In this case, δ Z is the
uncertainty of the value Z. A practical example of uncertainty would be a measurement with a
30cm ruler. So, if you measured an object with a length of the 20cm, the uncertainty would be
half the smallest division, which is +0.5mm. This measurement value is quoted as
200mm+0.5mm.
The Standard deviation (SD) is a measure of the scatter (or distribution) of the observations and
is used as the uncertainty for n observations which have a mean µ. For n observations 68% of
the observation should lie in the range µ + SD, 95% of the observations lie in the range µ +
2SD and 99.7% of the observations lie in the range µ + 3SD.
1
Mean, µ= ∑ X
n

https://www.labce.com/
spg49741_acceptable_standard_deviation_sd.as
px
Page 3

When a set of measurements are made, it is made sure that there is no systematic error. The
individual values are different to each other due to random errors and a mean value (µ) is taken
to obtain the best value. It is most likely that the mean value will not equal the true value of the
measurement. This true value is denoted as X. We are interested in finding how close the mean
is to X as the actual error in the measurement can never be known. If we did know the actual
error then we would change the value of µ so that it is equal to X. Therefore, we can only say
that there is a probability that X lies within a range of values around the mean (i.e. the
probability that X will be between Z - δ z or Z + δ z). This range of error (+δ z) is known as the
uncertainty in the measurement and is also called the error band.
The measurement uncertainty refers to the uncertainty of one single measurement quantity. If
the uncertainty in the mean of a set of n measurements needs to be obtained then the ‘standard
error in the mean’, or SEM, is used which is just the standard deviation of the mean. This
represents another distribution which is the distribution of the means of n measurements.
SD
SEM =
√n
SD
So, the mean would be written as µ +
√n
Page 4

II. Dynamics of the trifilar suspension system

Derivation of the Moment of inertia of the trifilar suspension system
Page 5
Page 6

III. Equations used

Moment of Inertia of the trifilar suspension

2 2
T Mg R
I= 2
. (1)
4π L

Mean
1
µ= ∑ X (2)
n
Standard Deviation

√∑
x=n
SD= ¿¿¿¿ (3)
x=1

Standard Error of the mean (SEM)

SD
SEM = (4)
√n
Adding (A+B) or Subtracting (A-B) uncertainties
δ A +B =δ A −B =√ δ A + δ B 2 2 (5)

Multiplying (AB) or Dividing (A/B) relative uncertainties

δ AB=δ A / B= √ e A +e B 2 2 (6)

Relative uncertainties with Indices

e A =n e A
n (Multiply by the index or power) (7)

Time Period (T) Calculation

20T
T= (8)
20
Calculation to determine I o
I o=I T −I p (9)
Calculation for percentage error band in a Value
δT
% Error band= × 100 (10)
T
Calculation for relative uncertainties
δA
e= (11)
A
Calculation for relative uncertainties in the estimated values of I p and I T
e I =√2 e +e
T M +2 e R +e L (12)

Calulation for the uncertainties in the estimated values of I p and I T

Page 7

e δI (13)
I =¿ ¿
I

Apparatus
Weighing scale – This was used to measure the mass of the plate and the block in Kilograms.
The uncertainty of the scale is 0.025kg.

Trifilar suspension – A pendulum system, composed of three strings (negligible mass)

attached to a 1kg circular plate that are all eqi-distant from each other. The other ends of the
strings were attached to the frame above the plate. The plate was twisted 90 degrees in the
horizontal plane and then allowed to freely oscillate so that we could time the period of its
oscillation.

Metal block – We did one experiment with a 1kg block placed on the plate so that we could
determine the moment of inertia of the block as well as the plate itself.

Stopwatch – To time the period of 20 oscillations of the trifilar system. We found that there
was an uncertainty of 0.2 seconds due to human error.
Page 8

Tape measure – Used to measure the length of the strings and the radius of the circular disk in
centimetres. The radius of the plate has an uncertainty of 0.0005m and the length value for the
strings has an uncertainty of 0.003m due the uncertainty of the measuring tape.

Knife edge – This was used to find the centre of gravity of the metal
block by balancing the block on the knife edge. We needed to do this so that we could align the
centres of gravity of the block and the plate. This was done to ensure that the trifilar suspension
did not sway in other directions, as this would cause the system to lose energy making the
timed periods of oscillations to become inaccurate.

Centre of gravity
marked on metal block

Knife edge

Spirit level – This made us sure that the plate was level. If the plate was unlevel, this would
suggest that the three strings were of different lengths. This would cause inaccurate time
readings because the longer strings would have greater time periods than the shorter ones.

Procedure
Page 9

1. First, we measured the length L of each string with the tape measure. The measurements
were taken from where the strings were firmly fixed.

2. Then, we measured the radius R of the plate. This radius is measured to where the
strings hold the plate, it is not measured to the ends of the plate.

3. The total mass M of the system was measured with the weighing scale

4. First, we turned the plate 90 degrees in the horizontal plane and let go of it so that we
could time 20 oscillations (20T) with the stop watch.

We took three readings of L, R and M, and we took 10 readings of 20T to enable us to

determine the mean of each value and the standard deviation for T. We took readings of
L, R, M and 20T for the plate alone and for the plate and the metal block combined and
so we proceeded with 2 sets of data.

5. After obtaining the data, we calculated the mean for L, R, M and T and could calculate
the SD (Standard Deviation) of the 10 readings of T (of course we had to divide 20T by
20 to get T). By calculating the SD for T, we could estimate the uncertainty in the
measurement by assuming that the SD corresponded to the uncertainty.

6. We also assumed the standard deviation were equal to the uncertainties of L, R and M as
well. The SD’s of L, R and M, are assumed to be 0.003m, 0.0005m and 0.025kg.

7. We calculated the moments of inertia for the plate alone and for the object and the plate
combined. And then, we calculated the relative uncertainties of each. We used these
values to calculate the moment of inertia of the object alone ( I o) and its relative
uncertainty (e I ).
o

Calculations and Results

 Page 10

I. Table of results
Plate only Plate & Object Object
Measurement 20T(s) T(s) deviation 2 Measurement 20T(s) T(s) deviation 2 I O (kgm 3 ) 0.0039
1 40.89 2.0445 0.0033 1 30.86 1.5430 0.0040 e Io 0.1795
2 39.17 1.9585 0.0008 2 30.60 1.5300 0.0059 % error band 17.95
3 38.16 1.9080 0.0062 3 31.65 1.5825 0.0006 δI O (kgm 3 ) 0.0007
4 40.90 2.0450 0.0034 4 32.81 1.6405 0.0011
5 39.18 1.9590 0.0077 5 33.40 1.6700 0.0040
6 40.95 2.0475 0.0037 6 33.91 1.6955 0.0079
7 38.77 1.9385 0.0023 7 31.71 1.5855 0.0004
8 39.99 1.9995 0.0016 8 30.92 1.5460 0.0037
9 40.16 2.0080 0.0045 9 32.32 1.6160 0.0001
10 39.18 1.9590 0.0008 10 33.14 1.6570 0.0025
Mean T SD T Mean T SD T
1.9868 0.0493 1.6066 0.0580

mean M mean R mean L mean M mean R mean L

0.7kg 0.13m 1.70m 1.7kg 0.13m 1.73m

I P (kgm 3 ) 0.0068 I T (kgm 3 ) 0.0107

δT (s) δM (kg) δR (m) δL (m) δ T (s) δ M (kg) δR (m) δL (m)

0.0493 0.0250 0.0005 0.0030 0.0580 0.0250 0.0005 0.0030
eT eM eR eL eT eM eR eL
0.0248 0.0357 0.0038 0.0018 0.0361 0.0147 0.0038 0.0017

e Ip δI P (kgm 3 ) e IT δI T (kgm 3 )
0.0504 0.0003 0.0534 0.0006
% error band % error band
5.04 5.34

For Plate only For Plate and object

combined
T mean=1.9868 s+ 0.0493 s
T mean=1.6066 s +
M =0.7 kg+ 0.0025 kg 0.0580 s
R=0.13 m + 0.0005 m M =1.7 kg+ 0.0025 kg
l=1.70 m + 0.0030 m R=0.13 m + 0.0005 m
3
I p=0.0068 kgm + 0.0002 kgm3 l=1.73 m + 0.0030 m
Page 11

II. Calculations
Page 12
Page 13

III. Notation

Discussion
I. I would expect 68% of the values to be within the error band.
SD
II. SEM =
√ 10
III.
For I p For I T

eM 0.0357 eT 0.0361
eT 0.0248 eM 0.0147
eR 0.0038 eR 0.0038
eL 0.0018 eL 0.0017
IV. The relative uncertainty in M is large because we the uncertainty in M was large. This is
because we used an imprecise weighing scale. When we measured the mass of the
system, the needle on the scale did point exactly to a whole unit on the scale. In other
words, the needle pointed to the small gaps between each unit and therefore we had to
round to the nearest unit and therefore M was not measured correctly. This is a
systematic error. We could improve this by taking more measurements of M and then
take a mean to reduce the uncertainty. Another way we could improve this is to use a
digital scale. This would allow us to take a more precise reading as we are able to see
the decimal places.

V. To reduce the uncertainty in T I would take 20 measurement of 20T instead of 10

measurements. This would give an improved estimate of the uncertainty in the value of
T because it checks how reproducible the measurement of T is. Taking 20
measurements of 20T would reduce the uncertainty by a half because double the amount
of repeats are taken. When we were counting the number of complete oscillations, we
found it difficult to determine exactly when it had completed a rotation and therefore,
the error in T may have been mainly to do with human error. To improve this, I would
Page 14

make the length of strings longer so that the time period for one rotation would be
increased. This means it would be easier to determine one rotation of the plate because
it wouldn’t oscillate to fast and would allow us to record a more precise measurement of
T.

VI. To determine I o we used the equation I o=I T −I p . The data for both I T and I p contains
errors and therefore these errors combine to produce a greater error in the value of I o
owing to a greater percentage error. Also, it was difficult to determine the centre of
gravity of the metal object because it was not easy to balance it on the knife edge.
Therefore, the centre of gravity may not have been exactly aligned with centre of
gravity of the plate. This means that the centre of mass would no longer be in the centre
of the plate and the weight distribution between the strings would no longer be equal.
Also, the angle ɸ, which is the angle turned through by each string, would be different
for each string. These affects would redefine our equation of the moment of inertia of
the system. To improve this we can do more repeats of L, M, R, and T. This would
decrease the uncertainty in the values of I T and I p and so decrease the uncertainty in the
I o. The most difficult operation was to find the centre of mass of the object so there is
no improvement we can make. Also, aligning the centres of gravity are not as important
as the accuracy in the other measurements.

Conclusion
We set out to determine the moment of inertia of the trifler system by measuring L, M, R, and
T. The purpose of this was to set up an example of error analysis in experimental studies.
Therefore, we assessed and observed the percentage uncertainties in the measured values and
the moments of inertia and compared them the actual values. The percentage uncertainty
showed us the “accuracy” in the values and the relative uncertainty showed us the “precision”
in our values. Knowing the precision and accuracy of the obtained values is important as it
determined the “reproducibility” and “reliability” of the experiment.
I derived an equation for the moment of inertia of the trifiler suspension system using some
assumptions but also considering that the centres of mass of the object and the plate were not
exactly aligned. Also, we had to rely on ourselves to rotate the plate instead of using a
mechanism and therefore, we also had to consider that the plate could have been swaying and
not just rotating. This is a random error. We measured the radius and length with a tape
measure and we measured the mass of the system with standard weighing scale. We found that
the relative uncertainty in M was significantly large because the scale was not very precise.
These factors contributed to the percentage uncertainties in I T ∧I p. As a result, we obtained a
value for I o which had a relatively large uncertainty.
Overall, we can conclude that errors are always present in experimental studies and the analysis
of errors is crucial in assessing the reliability and the reproducibility of the results produced.

References
G. L. SQUIRES (1985). Practical Physics. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p12-
13, 16-17, 25
J Hannah and R C Stephens (1984). Mechanics of Machines. 4th ed. London: Edward Arnold
Ltd. p72-73.