Equilibrium and Strength of Materials

Zainab Hassoun
Andrew Perez (partner)

Physics 1 Lab (Thursday)

Mr. Kiledjian
05/25/2017
Purpose: The purpose of this lab was to experiment with systems that are in equilibrium and
prove the formulas for equilibrium. We also wanted to examine the actual breaking tension of a
cord and compare that with its theoretical result. Lastly, we wanted to look at Youngs modulus
of a ruler and compare it to its theoretical value.

Equipment: two meter sticks, weights, cord, clam and support, cylinders, protractor, and Vernier
caliper

Procedure: A 1-meter ruler was placed on a horizontal table against another vertical table with
the angle between the two tables set at 90. Another ruler was placed flat on the table next to the
1-meter ruler. The base of the original ruler was slowly moved from the table until it slipped.
The distance from the base of the ruler to the table is measured by the flat ruler three times. Then
the average distance is taken. With the average distance, the angle at which it slipped was
calculated and used to solve for the average coefficient of static friction.
Then, the hanger was hung a certain distance from the bottom base of the ruler, and the
ruler was raised such that it did not slip. The distance from the table to the base of the ruler was
recorded. Then, weights were added to the hanger slowly until it slipped. The total mass
including the mass of the hanger were recorded. This was done twice and the masses were
averaged out and compared to the theoretical mass obtained from the equations of equilibrium.
Finally, the ruler was placed on top of the table, and the table was tilted until the ruler
slips. Just as it slipped, the higher and lower heights were measured, and the slipping angle and
coefficient of static friction average were calculated. The percent difference between the two
methods was calculated and the results were compared.
For the second part of this experiment, a cord was hung from a support and the actual
breaking strength was measured. This procedure was repeated again with a different length cord
to obtain an average breaking strength. Then, the table was turned on its side and a long cord was
extended over the two legs of the table. The horizontal distance between the two legs of the table
where the cord was touching was measured along with the vertical distance from the floor to the
straight cord. Now, a 1-kg mass was hung from the cord and it was slowly pulled on by both
ends of the cord so that the weight rises up. The ruler is kept next to the weight so that the height
of the cord could be measured when it snapped. The height at which the cord snapped was
recorded and repeated to obtain an average breaking strength.
For the third part, a 1-meter ruler was placed over two cylinders on the 1 and 99cm marks
or the 2 and 98 cm marks. Weights were placed on the 50 cm mark so that the ruler would start
to bend. More weights were added to the ruler until the ruler touched the table; this weight was
then recorded. Then, the ruler was turned over to the other side to compensate for warping. The
steps were repeated to obtain a second weight. The average of those weights was calculated. The
width and thickness of the ruler were measured using the Vernier caliper and the length would be
the difference between the two markings. The bending amount would be equal to the height of
the cylinders which was measured by using the Vernier caliper.
Data Analysis:

Part 1:

Length of the Ruler, L= 1 m Mass of the Ruler, m= 0.1425kg

d1= 0.385m d2 = 0.389m d3 = 0.425m davg = 0.4m
= 66.42

S1avg = 0.2085

Mexp1 = 0.5779kg Mexp2 = 0.8537kg

MexpAvg = 0.7158kg x = 0.67m
Mtheor = 0.0775kg d = 0.36m

% Error1 = 824%

Length of Table, L = 1.778m, Higher height, Hhigher1= 1.218m

Lower height, Hlower1= 0.757m
Slipping angle, 1 = 15.03

Higher height, Hhigher2 = 1.218m, Lower height, Hlower2= 0.757m

Slipping angle, 2 = 15.03
Average slipping angle, avg = 15.03
Coefficient of Static friction, S2avg = 0.2685

% Difference = 25.1%

Part 2:

Long Cord Length = 0.598m Short Cord Length = 0.34m

Actual Breaking Tension, T1 = 68.63N T2 = 45.09N
Average Actual Breaking Tension, TactAvg= 56.87N

Distance between two Table Legs, D = 1.6m

Height to the straight cord, Hno mass = 0.442m
Height of cord when it breaks, Hbreaks1 = 0.422m
Distance that the Cord Sags, d1= 0.02m
Experimental Breaking Strength, Texp1 = 196N

Height of cord when it breaks, Hbreaks2 = 0.422m

Distance that the Cord Sags, d2= 0.02m
Experimental Breaking Strength, TexpAvg = 196N

Average Experimental Breaking Strength, TexpAvg= 196N

% Error2 = 246.4%
Part 3: L = 0.8m
b = 0.026 m, d = 0.078m, y = 0.0127m
W1 = 11.368N W2 = 11.417N, Wavg = 11.3925N
Yexp = 9305935 Pa

% Error3 = 99.9%

Calculations:
Part 1
Calculation of Slipping Angle 1
0.340
= 1 ( ) = 66.42
1

Calculation of S1avg

1 = sec(66.42) tan(66.42) = 0.2085

Calculation of Mtheo

( ) + () = () +
2

(1.3965 + ) 1.3965 + 9.8

(9.8)(0.1425)(0.5) + (9.8)(. 67) = (1)68.9 + (0.2085)( )
5 5

3.49125 + 32.83 = (1.3965 + 9.8) (tan(68.9) + 0.2085)

5.389 = 0.4190

= 0.0775

% Error1

|0.7158 0.0775|
%1 = 100 = 824%
0.0775

Slipping angle, 1

1.218 0.757
= 1 ( ) = 15.03
1.778

Slipping angle, 2

1.218 0.757
= 1 ( ) = 15.03
1.778
Calculation of S2avg

2 = tan(15.03) = 0.2685

% Difference

2|0.2085 0.2685|
% = 100 = 25.2%
(0.2685 + 0.2085)

Part 2

Actual Breaking Tension, T1

1 = (9.8 7.0028) = 68.62744 68.63

Actual Breaking Tension, T2

2 = (9.8 4.6008) = 45.08784 45.09

Experimental Breaking Strength, Texp1

2 0.5
(1 + (1.62 0.02) )
1 = (1)(9.8) = 196
2

Experimental Breaking Strength, Texp2

2 0.5
(1 + (1.62 0.02) )
2 = (1)(9.8) = 196
2

% Error2

|56.87 196|
%2 = 100 = 246.4%
56.87

Part 3

Youngs Modulus

(11.3925)(0.83 ) 5.83296
= 3
= = 0.009305934907
4(0.026)(0.078 )(0.0127) 0.0000006268
% Error3

|11.6 0.009305935|
%3 = 100 = 99.9%
11.6

Extra Credit #1

LNew = 0.6m
Wnew1 = 27.146N, Wnew2 = 29.792N, WnewAvg = 28.469N

WnewTheo = 27.00N

(9305935)(4)(0.026)(0.0783 )(0.0127)
= = 27.00
(0.63 )

% Error4

|27 28.469|
%4 = 100 = 5.44%
27

Extra Credit #2
LNew = 0.6m
Wnew1 = 28.616N, Wnew2 = 28.126N, WnewAvg = 28.371N

(28.371)(0.63 )
= = 0.064749597
4(0.0783 )(0.0127)(9305935)

Extra Credit #3
LNew = 0.6m
Wnew1 = 27.146N, Wnew2 = 28.126N, WnewAvg = 27.636N

(27.636)(0.63 )
= = 0.105
4(0.0127)(9305935)(0.026)
Discussion:
From the data that we collected above, we were able to calculate two values for the coefficient of
static friction of the table. The first technique utilized the equations of static equilibrium and the
coefficient of static friction was calculated to be 0.2085 (see calculation above); the next
technique used prior knowledge of kinematics to calculate the coefficient, which was calculated
to be 0.2685 (see calculation above). The percent difference between these two coefficients were
calculated below:

2|0.2085 0.2685|
% = 100 = 25.2%
(0.2685 + 0.2085)

The difference between the two values is a bit large but we can expect that there will be a
difference since these two values were measured using different techniques. The second
technique had a larger value for the coefficient of static friction but this was expected because
the surface of contact was along the entire length of the ruler, whereas in the first technique, only
a small part of the ruler was in contact with the table. The more contact that the ruler has with the
table, the more likely it is to be slowed down because there is more friction pushing against it.

In addition to calculating the coefficient of static friction, this portion of the experiment allowed
us to examine the amount of mass the ruler could hold at a certain point before it began to slip.
According to the experimental results, approximately 0.7158kg could be placed on the ruler
before it began to slip. However, according to the theoretical equilibrium equations, the amount
of mass that could be placed on the ruler was only 0.0775kg. This made the percent error as
follows:

|0.7158 0.0775|
%1 = 100 = 824%
0.0775

One reason why this large percent error may have been observed would be due to the method of
attaching weights to the ruler. There was some difficulty in doing this process, and the weights
were hung very slowly, which could have contributed to the fact that large amounts of weights
could be added to the ruler. Another reason why more weight could have been added could be
due to problems with the ruler. The ruler could have been a little bent and that may have
contributed to the error calculated above.

The next portion of the experiment that needs to be discussed is the breaking strength of a cord.
The breaking tension was measured in a long and short cord, and we discovered that there was a
difference in the breaking strength as a function of its length. We noted that the longer cord had a
breaking tension of about 68.63N and the shorter cord had a breaking tension of about 45.09N.
The fact that the breaking tension of the longer cord is larger than that of the shorter cord is not
something that I had expected to see because the longer the cord is, the more likely it has
imperfections which would contribute to lowering its tension. With a shorter rope, these
imperfections can be minimized and therefore, it should be able to handle more tension. The
numbers here claim the opposite, which may be attributed to the possibility that the longer cord
had fewer defects and could therefore withstand a higher amount of tension.
Through an indirect technique of finding the breaking strength, the experimental breaking
tension was found to be 192N, a value that was much larger than what was initially found by
hanging the masses on a string. The percent error is calculated below:

|56.87 196|
%2 = 100 = 246.4%
56.87

As can be seen, these two methods did not give the same result. The tension in the string was
much larger with the indirect method than in the direct method. The errors that may be present in
the direct method have already been discussed above. I do not think that these two methods gave
the same result because of their mechanism in finding out the tension in the string. I think that
relying on two individuals to tug on the string could be a source of error because it could have
been done too quickly, causing the string to snap in the wrong place.

Finally, the last portion of this experiment looked at the amount of pressure is required to bend a
ruler a certain amount. To do this, we had to calculate the Youngs Modulus and for the ruler we
used, this value was 9305935 Pa, when it should have been around 11.4 GPa. The percent error
for this value is calculated below:

|11.6 0.009305935|
%3 = 100 = 99.9%
11.6

As can be seen above, there was about 100% error with the experimental value given. Possible
reasons as to why this may have occurred could be due to the nature of the ruler itself. If it was
bent previously in areas, that may have had an effect on the Youngs Modulus value because it
could decrease the value (since it is already bent).

The extra credit portion attached to the Youngs Modulus experiment examined the various
values that you could solve for by using this equation. All the calculations are mentioned above.
The amount of weight that the ruler could withstand was relatively the same. For the values of
the breadth and depth of the object as well as the new amount of weight it would take to make
the ruler bend. Sources of error in this portion of the experiment would include the ruler itself
and the fact that the pressure used was the one calculated before. It made no sense to use the
theoretical value because the amount of pressure that the ruler could withstand was much lower.
It would throw off the data.

Conclusion: This experiment allowed me to examine various systems that are in the equilibrium
state. Unfortunately, I dont think that I was able to prove the formulas for equilibrium because
of the large errors I encountered. They were almost always conflicting with the theoretical results
which I found frustrating. However, I learned that we may get different results in different
situations because we are exposing the apparatus to various stresses. If I could redo this
experiment, one thing I would do differently is take my time in performing the experiment
because that would lead to less errors and I could then potentially see that we could prove the the
formulas of equilibrium.