Torsion Pendulum: Determining the Moment of Inertia of

a Rectangular Bar.
Carlota Figueroa Ortiz
Double Degree in Mathematics and Physics
Date of Experiment: 7th March 2023
Date of Submission: 21st March 2023

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this experiment was to determine the moment of inertia of a rectangular bar rotating
about an axis passing through its center of mass and perpendicular to its main axis. Please note that,
although the rectangular bar had a height (that is, its length dimension in the z-axis was not negligible),
it will be assumed to behave as a thin rod for all theoretical calculations. The data necessary to calculate
the moment of inertia was obtained by using a torsion pendulum and measuring the period of oscillation.

MATERIALS
• Rectangular bar with circular dents (connected to a fixed point via a solid wire)
• Two spheres of equal mass
• Chronometer

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
When the wire connecting the rectangular bar and the fixed point is twisted by an angle Φ, the bar exerts
a restoring force of momentum M on the string, hence twisting it in the opposite direction, towards its
equilibrium position. This restoring force is proportional to the angle of rotation, and the constant of
proportionality, 𝐾, is the torsion constant of the thread. Once allowing the system to freely rotate again,
the movement of the pendulum can be described as the rotation of a rigid solid experiencing a moment
𝑀, with angular acceleration α. Thus, the following equivalence is obtained:

𝑀 = −𝐾Φ = Iα (1)

By rewriting the angular acceleration as the second derivative of Φ with respect to the time, a second
order differential equation is generated. Its solution is that of a simple harmonic movement of angular
frequency 𝜔 and period 𝑇:
𝑑! 𝐾
!
𝜙 = − . 0 𝜙 (2)
𝑑𝑡 𝐼

𝐾 𝐼
⇒𝜔=4 , 𝑇 = 2𝜋4 (3)
𝐼 𝐾

With the torsion pendulum, the angle which the wire is twisted may be as large as desired as long as it
is not larger than the elastic limit of the thread.

Now, if two spheres are situated on the bar’s circular dents (and at the same distance from the bar’s
center of mass), then the moment of inertia of the system changes:

𝐼"#" = 𝐼$%& + 𝐼"'()&)"

Where 𝐼"'()&)" is the moment of inertia of the spheres with respect to the axis of rotation of the
system. This changes the period of the movement.

𝐼"'()&)" = 2𝑚𝑟* ! (4.1)

 𝐼$%& + 𝐼"'()&)" 𝐼$%& + 2𝑚𝑟 !
𝑇"'()&)" = 2𝜋4 = 2𝜋4 (4.2)
𝐾 𝐾

Combining equations (3) and (4), the dependence on 𝐾 is eliminated and the following expression for
𝐼$%& is obtained:

𝐼"'()&)" · 𝑇 !
𝐼$%& = (5)
(𝑇"'()&)" ! − 𝑇 ! )

METHOD

Figure 1: Diagram of Experimental Setup.

First, the bar is rotated a small angle (as the elastic limit of the wire is unknown, and this angle shouldn’t
exceed its value) around the perpendicular axis passing through its center of mass. The bar is then
released, allowing it to rotate in a horizontal plane and once it has acquired a uniform movement, the
chronometer is used to time how long it takes it to complete 30 oscillations.

The process is repeated 4 times. After obtaining the mean value of the time taken for the bar to complete
30 oscillations, this value is divided by 30 to derive the period of oscillation.

The process is repeated 2 more times. Initially, the spheres are placed in the innermost circular dents of
the bar (at a distance 𝑟* from the point at which the wire is connected to the bar), obtaining an additional
4 values for the time taken to complete 30 oscillations, and another value for the period of oscillation.
Lastly, the spheres are placed in the outermost circular dents (at a distance 𝑟! from the bar’s center of
mass) and the same is done as in the previous case.

RESULTS
CALCULATION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES
PERIOD
When calculating the period of oscillation, it was done by taking the average of the times it took the
system to perform 30 oscillations and dividing it by 30. Hence, for the period, it is necessary to consider
both the random and systematic uncertainties.

Δ𝑡+,- = =(𝐸& )! + (𝐸" )!

Now, the systematic uncertainty is taken as 0.01s as it was the precision of the chronometer. As for the
random uncertainty, this is calculated using the following equation. Please note that the t-student
coefficient was obtained using Excel’s TINV function (with a confidence level of 95% and 3 degrees
of freedom as 4 measurements were taken).
𝜎./*
𝐸& = 𝑡./*
√𝑛
As for the periods of oscillation:
1
Δ𝑇 = Δ𝑡
30 +,-

MOMENTS OF INERTIA
Both the moments of inertia of the bar and the spheres carry with them uncertainties. By using the
method of partial derivatives with equation (4.1), it is possible to obtain the expression for the
uncertainty in the moment of inertia of both spheres:

! !
𝜕𝐼"'()&) 𝜕𝐼"'()&)
Δ𝐼"'()&) 4
= . Δm0 + . Δr0 = =(2𝑟 ! Δm)! + (4𝑚𝑟Δr)!
𝜕𝑚 𝜕𝑟

As for the bar, the same can be done by applying the method of partial derivatives to equation (5).

! ! !
𝜕𝐼$%& 𝜕𝐼$%& 𝜕𝐼$%&
Δ𝐼$%& = 4. Δ𝐼"'()&) 0 + . Δ𝑇0 + . Δ𝑇"'()&) 0
𝜕𝐼"'()&) 𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑇"'()&)
⇒ Δ𝐼$%&
! ! !
𝑇! 2 · 𝐼"'()&) · 𝑇 · 𝑇"'()&) ! −2 · 𝑇"'()&) · 𝐼"'()&) · 𝑇 !
= IJ Δ𝐼"'()&) K + L Δ𝑇O + L Δ𝑇"'()&) O
𝑇"'()&) ! − 𝑇 ! M𝑇"'()&) ! − 𝑇 ! N
!
M𝑇"'()&) ! − 𝑇 ! N
!

The comparison to theoretical results will be done using the weighted mean for 𝐼$%& , which is obtained
from the moments of inertia when the spheres are placed in the innermost and outermost circular dents.

𝐼012 𝐼
+ 0)32
(∆𝐼012 )! (∆𝐼)32 )!
𝐼$%& =
1 1
! +
(∆𝐼012 ) (∆𝐼)32 )!

1
∆𝐼$%& =
1 1
Q +
(∆𝐼012 )! (∆𝐼)32 )!

TORSION CONSTANT OF THE THREAD

We can obtain an expression for 𝐾 once the moment of inertia is known. To this equation, we apply the
method of partial derivatives and obtain its uncertainty:

4𝜋 ! · 𝐼$%&
𝐾=
𝑇!

! ! ! !
𝜕𝐾 𝜕𝐾 4𝜋 ! −8 · 𝑇 · 𝜋 ! · 𝐼$%&
⇒ Δ𝐾 = 4. ∆𝐼$%& 0 + . ∆𝑇0 = 4J ! ∆𝐼$%& K + J ∆𝑇K
𝜕𝐼$%& 𝜕𝑇 𝑇 𝑇4
THEORETICAL VALUES
Finally, the last part of the experiment is concerned with comparing the experimental results to the
theoretical value of the moment of inertia of the rectangular bar if it were treated as a thin rod, also
rotating through an axis passing through its center of mass and perpendicular to the axis on which it
rotates. The following equations are introduced:

1
𝐼2()5&# = 𝑀𝐿
12

! ! ! !
𝜕𝐼2()5&# 𝜕𝐼2()5&# 1 1
∆𝐼2()5&# = 4. ∆𝑀0 + . 4
∆𝐿0 = . L · ∆𝑀0 + . M · ∆𝐿0
𝜕𝑀 𝜕𝐿 12 12

Where 𝑀 is the mass of the rod and 𝐿 is its length. Please note that the uncertainties in these
measurements are only the systematic uncertainties associated with the precision of the instruments and
will be taken as 0.1 gr and 0.05 mm respectively.

DATA

Table 1: Time taken for the bar to complete 30 oscillations.

Without Spheres: t Spheres interior: 𝒕𝑰𝑵𝑻 Spheres exterior: 𝒕𝑬𝑿𝑻

(s) (s) (s)
57.28 69.46 77.38
Measurements 57.09 69.33 77.21
57.14 69.21 77.01
57.39 69.52 77.25
Mean 57.23 69.38 77.27
Random Uncertainty 0.22 0.22 0.12
Systematic Uncertainty 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total Uncertainty 0.22 0.22 0.12

Table 2: Period of one oscillation.

Measurement (s) Uncertainty (s)

𝑻 1.9075 0.0072
𝑻𝑰𝑵𝑻 2.3127 0.0073
𝑻𝑬𝑿𝑻 2.5758 0.0039

Table 3: Data of the Spheres.

Measurement Uncertainty
Mass of the Spheres (g) 11.2 0.1
Inner distance to rotational 30.30 0.05
axis (𝒓𝟏 , 𝐦𝐦)
Outer distance to rotational 40.10 0.05
axis (𝒓𝟐 , 𝐦𝐦)
NOTE: Please note that the uncertainty for the mass of the spheres is given to one significant figure since that is
the highest degree of precision of the scale used.
 Table 4: Moments of Inertia of the Spheres and the Bar.
𝐤𝐠 𝐤𝐠
Moment of Inertia 3 , 𝟏𝟎+𝟔 6 Uncertainty 3 , 𝟏𝟎+𝟔 6
𝐦𝟐 𝐦𝟐
Spheres: inner distance to 20.57 0.20
rotational axis (𝑰𝟏 )
Spheres: outer distance to 36.02 0.33
rotational axis (𝑰𝟐 )
Bar: Spheres at the inner 43.76 0.11
distance (𝑰𝑰𝑵𝑻 )
Bar: Spheres at the outer 43.75 0.58
distance (𝑰𝑬𝑿𝑻 )
Bar: Weighted Mean (𝑰8) 43.75 0.51
NOTE: Please note that before completing the calculations for the moments of inertia, the data in the previous
tables was converted to kg and m, in order to yield the results in this table in IS units.

Table 5: Torsion Constant of the Thread.

𝐤𝐠·𝐦𝟐 𝐤𝐠·𝐦𝟐
Measurement 3 , 𝟏𝟎+𝟓 6 Uncertainty 3 , 𝟏𝟎+𝟓 6
𝐬𝟐 𝐬𝟐
Torsion Constant of the 47.47 0.88
Thread (𝑲)

Table 6: Theoretical values for the Moment of Inertia of the Bar as a Thin Rod.

Measurement Uncertainty
DATA PROVIDED BY THE
LAB
Mass of the bar (g) 66.2 0.1
Length of the bar (mm) 90.00 0.05
Moment of Inertia of the Bar 44.69 · 10+5 0.67 · 10+5
𝐤𝐠
as a Thin Rod 3𝑰𝑻𝑯𝑬𝑶𝑹𝒀, 𝐦𝟐 6
DATA MEASURED DURING
EXPERIMENT
Mass of the bar (g) 66.2 0.1
Length of the bar (𝒍𝒙 , mm) 89.00 0.10
Width of the bar (𝒍𝒚 , mm) 10.00 0.10
Height of the bar (𝒍𝒛 , mm) 10.00 0.10
Moment of Inertia of the Bar 43.70 · 10+5 0.74 · 10+5
𝐤𝐠
as a Thin Rod 3𝑰𝑹𝑶𝑫, 𝐦𝟐6
NOTE: The theoretical results derived from the data that the lab provided gave a relatively large error with
respect to the experimental results, hence several measurements were taken again. Please note this is further
discussed in the ‘Compatibility of Results’ section of the report, and it is also explained why the width and
height of the bar were measured.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

PRECISION
The discussion of the precision of the results is not a particularly interesting one for this experiment,
hence this section will be kept short. Beginning with the torsion constant of the thread, its relative
uncertainty can be calculated:
∆𝐾 0.88 · 10−5
𝛿6 = · 100 = · 100 = 1.9%
𝐾 47.47 · 10−5
Having a relative uncertainty of the order of 2% exhibits that the quality of measurements was high.
This is likely a result of the torsion constant being calculated from the weighted mean of the moment
of inertia of the bar: by being a calculation derived from many previous measurements, its relative
uncertainty is low. Next, it is possible to discuss the precision of the three moments of inertia for the
bar obtained:
∆𝐼 ̅ 43.75 · 10−6
𝛿0 ̅ = ̅ · 100 = · 100 = 1.2%
𝐼 0.88 · 10−6
∆𝐼2()5&# 44.69 · 10−6
𝛿0!"#$%& = · 100 = · 100 = 1.5%
𝐼2()5&# 0.67 · 10−6
∆𝐼&58 43.70 · 10−6
𝛿0%$' = · 100 = · 100 = 1.7%
𝐼&58 0.74 · 10−6

Once again, all of the relative uncertainties are below the 2% threshold, underlining a high quality of
results. It is worth noting that the relative uncertainty for 𝐼&58 is the highest. Since the measurements
were taken again during the experiment, the uncertainty in the length of the bar was taken as 0.10 mm
because I was not acquainted with the caliper and had some issues finding the point from which I
should start measuring. Hence, I opted for a more conservative uncertainty of 0.10 mm.

COMPATIBILITY OF RESULTS
Beginning with the torsion constant of the thread, since the material, length and diameter of the wire
are unknown, it isn’t possible to compare the experimental value to any published results.
Additionally, the theoretical value for 𝐾 can be calculated from the following equation (He, Peng and
Liu 2016):
𝐺·𝐼
𝐾=
𝑙

Where 𝐺 is the shear modulus, 𝑙 is the length of the wire and 𝐼 is its moment of inertia. The shear
modulus can be determined experimentally from a torsion pendulum, but that was not done during
this experience, hence it isn’t possible to determine the compatibility of the torsion constant to any
theoretical values either.

Regarding the moment of inertia of the bar, it should be noted that the theoretical result calculated
using the data provided by the lab were compatible with the experimental results:

Figure 2: Compatibility between 𝐼 ̅ and 𝐼!"#$%& .

Now, the error can be calculated:

|𝐼2()5&# − 𝐼 |̅ b44.69 · 10−6 − 43.75 · 10−6 b

𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = = 2.1%
𝐼2()5&# 44.69 · 10−6

An error of the order of 2.1% symbolizes that the results were accurate: the experimental setup
allowed for quality measurements to be taken that allowed for an experimental result that is
compatible with the theoretical value to be obtained. As can be observed in Table 4, 𝐼012 and 𝐼)32
were nearly the same, showcasing how consistent results were obtained. In fact, this could be a sign
that (either due to luck or due to a reduction in the systematic and random errors throughout the
experiment), the system behaved as it would have been expected theoretically despite the various
assumptions that had been made. To verify that the data on the length and mass of the bar that the
laboratory provided were accurate, I measured these values again, obtaining a different measurement
of the length. In this case, the theoretical and experimental values are nearly the same:

Figure 3: Compatibility between 𝐼 ̅ and 𝐼%$' .

Plus, the error between the values is nearly negligible:

|𝐼&58 − 𝐼|̅ b43.70 · 10−6 − 43.75 · 10−6 b

𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = = 0.12%
𝐼&58 43.70 · 10−6

This exemplifies that, regardless of the aforementioned assumptions (which will now be further
discussed), the experimental setup of the torsion pendulum provides a good method of obtaining
values that verify the theoretical model.

Despite the results already being compatible, it is important to comment on the several modifications
that could be made to improve the experiment. First, the theoretical calculations assumed the
rectangular bar to behave as a thin rod or plank. However, considering that its height and width were
the same, it could be argued that the theoretical calculations should have been performed using the
formula for the moment of inertia of a rectangular prism, rather than a rod. To verify whether this
would provide a more accurate result, the following calculations were performed (West 2017). Please
note that here 𝑙9 refers to the length of the rectangular bar, 𝑙: represents its height and 𝑀 its mass
(data presented in Table 6).

1 kg
𝐼'&0"; = 𝑀M𝑙9 ! + 𝑙: ! N = 44.25 · 10/< 2
12 m

! ! !
𝜕𝐼'&0"; 𝜕𝐼'&0"; 𝜕𝐼'&0";
∆𝐼'&0"; 4
= . Δ𝑙9 0 + J Δ𝑙: K + . Δ𝑀0
𝜕𝑙3 𝜕𝑙: 𝜕𝑀
! ! !
1 1 1 ! !
⇒ ∆𝐼'&0"; 4
= . 𝑀 · 𝑙9 · Δ𝑙9 0 + . 𝑀 · 𝑙: · Δ𝑙: 0 + . M𝑙9 + 𝑙: NΔ𝑀0 = 0.12 · 10/<
6 6 12

This value is also compatible with 𝐼 :̅

Figure 4: Compatibility between 𝐼 ̅ and 𝐼(%)*+ .

Moreover, this is the error:

|𝐼'&0"; − 𝐼|̅ b44.25 · 10/< − 43.75 · 10−6 b

𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = = 1.1%
𝐼'&0"; 44.25 · 10/<
The error here is larger than when considering 𝐼&58 as the optimal theoretical value. Therefore, this
justifies that the assumption that the bar would behave as a thin rod was appropriate, likely because of
the small dimensions of the bar, regardless of the fact that its width and height were the same.

Furthermore, it could be the case that, as a consequence of the circular dents where the spheres were
placed, the center of mass of the bar was not on its geometric center as was assumed. If the circular
dents were the same in radius and depth, due to symmetry, the approximation of the center of mass
being located at the axis of rotation is justified. Since the theoretical and experimental values were
compatible, this was most likely the case, especially given that the amount of missing mass that was
removed from the dents is relatively small when compared to the total mass of the bar. Let us verify if
this is the case. Please note that for the following section uncertainties are not being considered as
they are not relevant for the discussion.

The radius of the spheres was not measured, but this can be obtained through their density (Evans
2015). Assuming that they were made out of copper:

𝑀"'()&) ( 3 𝑀"'()&) ( 3 11.2 · 10/4

𝑉"'()&) = ⇒ 𝑅"'()&) = 4 · =4 · = 0.0067 m = 6.7 mm
𝜌=5'')& 4𝜋 𝜌=5'')& 4𝜋 8944
𝑀$%& 𝑀$%& 66.2 · 10/4 kg kg
𝜌$%& = = = = 7438 4 ≈ 7400 4
𝑉$%& 𝑙9 · 𝑙: · 𝑙> (10 · 10 · 89) · 10/? m m

We now consider the circular dents as hemispheres with radii equal to that of the spheres. Hence, the
mass removed in one of the dents is:

2 2
M8)12 = 𝑉();0"'()&) · 𝜌$%& = 𝜋 · 𝑅"'()&) 4 · 𝜌$%& = 7400 · 𝜋 · 0.00674 = 0.0047 kg = 4.7 g
3 3

When considering both dents, the proportion of the mass of the bar that they represent is:

4.7 · 2
· 100 = 14%
66.2

14% can be considered a significant proportion of the mass, hence, contrary to what was previously
mentioned, if the mass removed from both dents was not equal, that could have an impact on the
position of the bar’s center of mass that would be worth considering. However, it is important to
remark that this is only an estimation based on two assumptions: that the spheres were made of copper
and that the radius of the circular dents was equal to that of the spheres. In future experiments, it could
be valuable to measure the radii and depth of the dents (as we are assuming the dents to be
hemispheres, but this isn’t necessarily true) and take this into account to locate the correct center of
mass of the bar. Nevertheless, despite the aspects of the experimental setup or of the theoretical
calculations which could be improved, since the experimental and theoretical values obtained for the
moment of inertia of the rectangular bar were compatible, the experience can be considered a success.
Works Cited
He, Yumming, Kai Peng, and Dabiao Liu. 2016. Direct measurement of torsional properties of single
fibers. University Thesis, Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology.
West, Matthew. 2017. Moments of Inertia. Accessed March 19, 2023.
https://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/ref.html.
Evans, Paul. 2015. The Engineering Mindset - Denssity of Metals. May 18. Accessed March 19, 2023.
https://theengineeringmindset.com/density-of-metals/.