Basic Linear Measurements

J.Bumagat, M.Caballero, J.R.Gozum, J.L.Ramos Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering University of the Philippines, Diliman jeanlouiseramos@yahoo.com

Abstract
Uncertainties in measurements are important in engineering computations and are commonly reported as standard deviation and standard error. These uncertainties are affected by the accuracy of the instrument and the method of measurement. Comparison and applicability of measurements made using a ruler, Vernier caliper, with an accuracy of 0.1 cm and 0.05 mm respectively, and water displacement method was evaluated by determining the density of three different samples, glass slide, dog-boned rubber and Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe adaptor. The densities were obtained by determining the mass of the objects using an analytical balance with an uncertainty of 0.0001 gram and the volume by measuring the pertinent dimensions. The obtained densities of the samples using ruler, Vernier caliper and displacement method were 2.4 g/cm3, 2.01 g/cm3 and 4.5 g/cm3 respectively for the glass slide, 1.5 g/cm3, 1.04 g/cm3 and 1.5 g/cm3 respectively for rubber and 13.0 g/cm3, 7.5 g/cm3 and 2.0 g/cm3 respectively for PVC pipe adaptor. The analysis of the data were reported as relative error with the theoretical density values obtained as 2.40 g/cm3, 1.52 g/cm3 and 1.60 g/cm3 for glass, rubber and plastic sample. The relative errors for ruler were 0.10 %, 1.4% and 712.5%, for Vernier caliper were 16.3%, 31.7% and 368.8%, and for water displacement method were 86.0%, 1.4% and 25.0%. The difference in the accuracy of the ruler and the Vernier caliper were not clearly established from the results of the experiment as it was largely prone to error in measurements such as human, instrumental and random error. The ruler was more applicable to commercial measurements requiring minimal precision while Vernier caliper was more practical for use in the laboratory and for objects with cylindrical, circular and depth of dimension within the bulk of the sample requiring higher accuracy in measurement. Differential volume method was more applicable to objects with irregular shape and unreactive with water but not for volume measurement of larger objects.

1. Introduction
Much of the work in any laboratory involves the measurement of numerical quantities. A quantitative measurement includes a numerical quantity, the proper unit and the uncertainty [1]. The uncertainty of measurements is crucial for comparing experimental numbers [2] when working in several trials or when using different measurement techniques. Measurements always have uncertainty which varies with the accuracy of the measuring device and the method of measurement used. The uncertainty is also called error because it indicates the maximum difference between the measured value and the true value [3]. In addition, error propagation may be attributed to various factors involved in the actual measurement which could only be minimized but not totally eliminated. Standard deviation and standard errors are statistical measures of uncertainty due to random errors. Common errors in measurement include random error, instrumental error and human error. Random errors are unpredictable errors due to random fluctuations in environmental conditions including temperature, voltage and mechanical vibrations among others. Instrumental errors include the precision, accuracy and limitations of the instrument used. Human errors involve reading and experimentation subject to human biases and conditions [4]. The most basic measurement of materials and objects involve linear measure. Linear measurement is taking the dimension of a straight line [5]. The experiment aims to evaluate the comparison of estimating the density of different objects using different methods and instruments. First, density would be estimated by obtaining the mass, using analytical balance, and the volume of each object by means of measuring the pertinent dimensions using ruler and Vernier caliper. Another method would estimate the volume of each object by water displacement. Also, the study aims to evaluate the applicability of the measuring devices. Vernier caliper is an extremely precise measuring instrument with a reading error of 0.05 mm [6]. A ruler has a larger uncertainty of 0.1 cm

[7]

. Therefore, it is expected that the Vernier caliper would give a closer estimation of the true value of the volume of each object compared to the ruler. The literature value of density for glass, rubber and plastic are 2.40 g/mL 1.52 g/mL and 1.60 g/mL respectively. The accuracy of a 500-mL graduated cylinder is 1 mL.

The mass of the samples obtained in tree trials and the average of the values using analytical balance is shown in Table 1. The table shows small deviation of values obtained in each trial from the average value. This is due to the precision of the analytical balance with an uncertainty of 0.0001g. Table 1. Mass of samples
Object Glass Rubber Plastic Trial 1 4.4682 14.5052 14.1612 Mass (grams) Trial 2 4.4683 14.5056 14.1613 Trial 3 4.4682 14.5051 14.1612 Average 4.4682 14.5053 14.1612

2. Methodology
The mass of each of the three different samples, glass slide, dog-boned rubber and Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) adapter, were obtained in three trials using an analytical balance. The pertinent dimensions of the objects were measured in three trials using a ruler and a Vernier caliper. The length, height and width were measured for the glass and the rubber. For the dog-bone rubber, the shape was assumed a rectangle with two triangles removed, whose vertices are pointing together as shown in Figure 1. The height and the outer diameter minus the inner diameter were measured for the PVC.

The measurement of pertinent dimensions of the three objects using ruler and Vernier caliper is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. Since the true value of each dimension is not known, only the precision of the values obtained and the resulting uncertainty of the measurements could be compared and evaluated, but not the accuracy. Table 2. Measurements obtained using ruler
Object Dimension Height Length Width Height Length Width Diameter Height Trial 1 7.6 2.6 0.10 10.60 3.55 0.35 0.60 3.55 Trial 2 7.6 2.6 0.09 10.55 3.55 0.35 0.70 3.45 Trial 3 7.55 2.55 0.10 10.52 3.56 0.35 0.59 3.55 Average 7.58 2.58 0.10 10.56 3.55 0.35 0.63 3.52

Glass

Rubber

Figure 1. Dog-bone rubber For the displacement method, a 500-mL graduated cylinder, with an accuracy of 1 mL [9], was filled to the mark with water and the initial volume was recorded. The glass slide was completely immersed in the graduated cylinder and the amount of change in the volume of the water was recorded which was the equivalent volume of the slide. The process was repeated for the rubber and plastic sample. The measurements were made in trials to minimize the effect of errors in measurement. The values in each trial obtained for each dimension were averaged. From the averaged measure of mass and volume of each object using the two methods, the respective densities were calculated and evaluated.

Plastic

Table 3. Measurements obtained using Vernier caliper

Object Dimension Height Length Width Height Length Width Diameter Height Trial 1 7.585 2.540 0.150 10.480 3.610 0.480 0.910 3.515 Trial 2 7.475 2.440 0.100 10.500 3.540 0.475 0.700 3.420 Trial 3 7.600 2.540 0.100 10.590 3.660 0.480 0.825 3.525 Average 7.553 2.507 0.117 10.523 3.603 0.478 0.812 3.487

Glass

Rubber Plastic

3. Results and Discussion

Each measurement was evaluated and compared with each other as to which of them are feasible to use at a certain situation. Through this activity, the precision and applicability of each measuring tools were defined and analyzed.

In Table 4 and Table 5, the standard deviation (sd) and standard error (se) of measurements obtained using ruler and Vernier caliper respectively are shown. Both measures are expressed as uncertainties preceding the mean or average value of the measurement obtained as in mean sd or se. The standard deviation is the measure of the spread of data [2] and is given by the formula

sd

( X i X )2
i 1

(1)

while standard error is an estimate in the uncertainty in the average of the measurements [2]. It is affected by the number of trials in measurement made [8] and is given by the formula

se

(X
i 1

X )2
(2)

n(n 1)

For both standard deviation and standard error calculation, the width of rubber and the plastic diameter data did not coincide for the ruler and the Vernier caliper method. This could have been due to error in the experimentation. The mean value obtained for each dimension using two different measuring devices largely deviate from each other. This gave a smaller probability that the relatively small uncertainties could make up for the large deviation of the mean values. Human error in the form of reading bias was introduced when the measurements using the two instruments were performed separately by two different groups. The volume of each object was computed using the mean dimension values. The volume of the glass slide, rubber and plastic were calculated using equations (3), (4) and (5) respectively as follows

Table 4 shows the calculated standard deviation of measurements obtained using ruler and Vernier caliper. The instrument can measure as small deviation from the mean value that the ruler was not able to detect as shown by the data of the width of rubber. Sample calculations for standard deviation and standard error are supplied in Appendix A. Table 4. Standard deviation and the average measurement obtained using ruler and Vernier caliper
Object Dimension Height Glass Length Width Height Rubber Length Width Plastic Diameter Height Ruler 7.58 0.024 2.58 0.024 0.097 0.005 10.56 0.033 3.55 0.006 0.35 0.63 0.050 3.52 0.047 Vernier Caliper 7.553 0.056 2.507 0.047 0.117 0.024 10.523 0.048 3.603 0.049 0.478 0.002 0.812 0.086 3.487 0.047

Vglass (length)( width)(height )

(3)

Vrubber (length)( width)(height ) 2Vtriangle (4)

1 Vtriangle [(base)(height )( width)]triangle 2 1 Vplastic (diamout diamin )(height ) (5) 4

Sample calculations for volume are supplied in Appendix A. The obtained net volume for the triangle section of the rubber sample was 4.32 cm3. The calculated volumes for each object using ruler and Venier caliper measurements are tabulated in Table 6. Also, the volume obtained using differential volume method is supplied in the table. Large discrepancies may be observed from the obtained volumes of the glass slide, rubber and plastic from the three different methods. Table 6. Calculated volume of samples
Using Ruler, (cm3) 1.9 10.2 1.1 Volume Using Vernier Caliper, (cm3) 2.22 14.0 1.88 Using Water Displacement Method, (mL) 1.0 10.0 6.0

The calculated standard errors for data obtained using Vernier caliper were generally unexpectedly larger than that of the calculated values from the ruler method. Table 5. Standard error and the average measurement values obtained using ruler and Vernier caliper
Object Dimension Height Glass Length Width Height Rubber Length Width Diameter Height Ruler 7.58 0.017 2.58 0.017 0.097 0.003 10.56 0.023 3.55 0.003 0.35 0.63 0.035 3.487 0.047 Vernier Caliper 7.553 0.039 2.507 0.033 0.117 0.017 10.523 0.034 3.603 0.035 0.478 0.002 0.812 0.061 3.487 0.033

Object Glass Rubber Plastic

The mass and volume of the samples known, the densities were calculated using the formula

Density

mass volume

(6)

Plastic

The calculated and theoretical values of densities of the three samples are tabulated in Table 7. The density values of the glass slide measured using a ruler and a Vernier caliper are relatively close to each other and the theoretical value compared with that obtained from the displacement method. The glass slide density obtained from the displacement

method was approximately twice as much as the literature value with 86.0% relative error. The ruler method was the closest to approximate the literature value of the density for the glass slide among the three methods with only 0.10% relative error and 16.3% for Vernier caliper. The rubber density obtained for all three methods closely approximated the literature value. Among the three methods, the Vernier caliper value was the farthest approximation with 31.7% relative error while it was 1.4% for both ruler and displacement method. Discrepancies of the density obtained for the rubber was due to the irregular shape of the sample which was loosely approximated for convenience in measurement. The values of densities calculated for the plastic sample obtained the largest deviation from the theoretical value among the three samples. The density obtained for glass slide, rubber, and plastic were 13.0 g/cm3, 7.50 g/cm3 and 2.0g/mL respectively. Only the displacement method closely approximated the theoretical density of the plastic sample. This was due to the irregular shape of the sample which was not accounted for using the ruler and Vernier caliper method. The relative errors for the glass, rubber and plastic samples were 712.5%, 368.8% and 25.0% respectively. Vernier approximation of the plastic density was closer to the theoretical value than that of the ruler approximation which was partly due to the fact that Vernier caliper has features to be able to measure inner and outer diameter accurately. From the data, the displacement method still resulted to a large relative error due to the bias in reading the volume from the graduated cylinder. Table 7. Calculated and theoretical densities
Density Using Using Water Vernier Disp Caliper, Method, 3 (g/cm ) (g/mL) 2.01 4.5 1.04 7.50 1.5 2.0

Table 8. Relative error of calculated densities

Relative Error Using Using Water Vernier Displacement Caliper Method 16.3% 86.0% 31.7% 368.8% 1.4% 25.0%

Object Glass Rubber Plastic

Using Ruler 0.10% 1.4% 712.5%

The measurement readings from the instruments used were all subjected to human error. The readings were also subjected to human bias. Replication of measurements in trials was performed to minimize human error and bias. Volume measurement may not have been measured on a perfectly leveled ground upon the actual reading. The measurements were also subjected to instrumentation error including the accuracy of the instrument. Uncertainties were included in the calculation to make up for the accumulated errors and uncertainty in the experimentation. Random errors may have also been present in the form of varying temperature and molecular vibrations that caused minimal expansion or contraction of the measuring devices which were hardly visible to the naked eye. The Vernier caliper showed unexpected degree of relative error due to various uncontrollable factors.

4. Conclusion
The results show that the measuring instruments and methods used in the experiment were largely prone to various sources of error and appropriate procedures are necessary for a more accurate measurement. It is important to properly account for irregularities in the shape of the samples when such measurements are performed. Different modes of measurement have their own advantages and applications. For samples with highly irregular shapes, the water displacement method is more appropriate. Linear measurement is more appropriate for obtaining density of regularlyshaped objects as the measurement of dimensions are minimal and that the volume can easily be calculated using the a formula. In addition, displacement method is impractical for large objects. Comparison between a ruler and a Vernier caliper was not established in the study but the applicability of both was highlighted. Vernier caliper is more applicable for linear measurement of objects with cylindrical and circular dimensions than a ruler.

Object

Using Ruler, (g/cm3) 2.4 1.5 13.0

Theo (g/cm3 or g/mL) 2.40 1.52 1.60

Glass Rubber Plastic

The relative errors in densities of the samples from their respective theoretical values, shown in Table 8, were calculated using equation 7,

Er

| X X true | 100% X true

(7)

5. References
[1] R. S. Figliola and D. E. Beasley, Theory and Design for Mechanical Measurements, 3e, Lehigh Press Inc., New York, USA, 1998. [2] R. Allain, Measurement and Uncertainty Notes, Southeastern Luisiana University, 2002. Accessed 13Jul11 through URL http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/pl ab194/error.html [3] D. H. Young, and R. A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics, 11e, Pearson Education South Asia PTE Ltd., Jurong, Singapore, 2004. [4] B. M. Buenaventura, et. al., Measurements in Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Laboratory Manual, Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, UP Diliman, 2009. [5] A. S. Morris, Measurement and Calibration Requirements, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., England, UK, 2003.

[6] R. J. Scalise, Vernier Caliper, Department of Physics, Southern Methodist University, 2007. Accessed 13Jul11 through URL http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/apparatus/cali per/ [7] Chemistry Teaching Laboratories, Uncertainty, Error and Precision in Quantitative Measurements, Chemistry Department, University of Oregon, 2006. Accessed 13Jul11 through URL http://chemlabs.uoregon.edu/Classes/Exton/Misc/d eterminate.html [8] V. Lindberg, Uncertainties and Error Propagation, Department of Physics, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2003. Accessed 13Jul11 through URL http://www.rit.edu/cos/uphysics/uncertainties/Unce rtaintiespart1.html [9] ChemLab, Flasks, Beakers and Graduated Cylinders, Dartmouth College, 2000. Accessed 13Jul11 through URL http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chemlab/techniques/fla sks.html

Appendix A
Sample Calculations
Glass slide using ruler a. Height

X
i 1

n
n i 1

7.6 7.6 7.55 7.58 3

i

sd
sd

(X

X )2

n
(7.6 7.58)2 (7.6 7.58)2 (7.55 7.58)2 0.024 3

se

(X
i 1

X )2

n(n 1)
(7.6 7.58)2 (7.6 7.58) 2 (7.55 7.58) 2 0.017 (3)(3 1)

se

b.

Length
X

X
i 1

n
n i 1

2.6 2.6 2.55 2.58 3

i

sd sd

(X

X )2

n (2.6 2.58) 2 (2.6 2.58) 2 (2.55 2.58) 2 0.024 3

se se

(X
i 1

X )2

n(n 1) (2.6 2.58) 2 (2.6 2.58) 2 (2.55 2.58) 2 0.017 (3)(3 1)

c.

Width
X

X
i 1

n
n i 1

0.10 0.09 0.10 0.097 3

i

sd

(X

X )2

(0.10 0.097) 2 (0.09 0.097) 2 (0.10 0.097) 2 sd 0.005 3 se se

(X
i 1

X )2

n(n 1) (0.10 0.097) 2 (0.09 0.097) 2 (0.10 0.097) 2 0.003 (3)(3 1)

Appendix A Sample Calculations

d. Volume

Volume (length)( width)(height ) (7.58)(2.58)(0.097) 1.89373 1.9cm3

e.

Density

Mass 4.4682 g Density mass 4.4682 2.3595 g cm3 volume 1.89373

f.

Relative error

Densitytheo 2.40 g cm3 ER | X X theo | | 2.3595 2.40 | 100% 100% X theo 2.40

ER 0.10%