Petroleum and Mechanical Engineering

University of Salford

Error analysis in experimental studies

Engineering Dynamics
BY: Zainab Naeem
ID NUMBER: @00386515

Date of Submission: 09/02/2015

1
 Summary
This report presents an experiment done for analysing the errors in the experimental studies by
measuring the inertia using trifilar suspension system. A measurements of mass, oscillation period
and two dimensions were taken to calculate and determine the moment of inertia of the body on
the rotating plate of the trifilar suspension. Expressions of inertia and standard deviation were used
for the calculations.

Then from the results, undertake the error examination to find the predictable uncertainties for
different measurements to provide an overall approximation of an uncertainty of the inertia
calculations. Then calculate the Uncertainty Percentage of Radius, mass, length and time.

2
 Contents Page
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………... 2
1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.0 Theory ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
3.0 Apparatus List ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
4.0 Methods …………………….………………………………………………………………………………. 5
5.0 Results and calculations ……..……………………………………………………………………… 6,7
6.0 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
7.0 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
8.0 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9

3
 Error analysis in experimental studies

1.0 Introduction:
As it’s known that no engineering or Science experiment is 100% free of errors and mistakes.
Thus, this experiment was carried out to analyse the errors by using a trifilar suspension
using an example related to the Dynamics module which is known as (the measurements of
inertia ‘second moment of mass’).There are two important factors that can decrease the
total error in any experiment which are accuracy and precision.

Systematic error and random errors both are different experimental errors. Random errors
can simply examined by statistical analysis and also not hard to detect them. However
Systematic errors are linked more to the measurement’s accuracy and that cannot be
developed by doing the measurements again. They are opposite from the random errors as
they are difficult to detect and cannot be examined by statistical analysis easily.

2.0 Theory:

The expression for the inertia of the trifilar suspension:

2 2
T Mg R
I= 2
4π L

When:
I : is the inertia of the plate and the object placed on it
M: is the mass of the plate and the object on it
R: is the radius of the plate
L: is the length of the strings

3.0 Apparatus:

4
  Circular plate of radius of 120mm.
 3 strings around 172 cm in length supporting the circular plate
 Scale to weight the object.
 Stop-watch to record the time
 Metre rule for measuring the length of the strings
 Object which weighed 1.75 Kg.

Figure 1: Trifilar suspension

4.0 Method
 Collect all the equipment needed to start the experiment
 Recording the length of time for 20 oscillations and repeated this for 10 times in order to use
them for the statistical calculations
 Measuring the length (L) of the three strings using metre rule tape and repeat this 10 times to be
used in the statistical calculations.
 Measuring the mass (M) of the plate alone without the object and repeat this three times to get
accurate results.
 Measuring the radius (R) of the plate by using metre rule tape and this had to be measured to
the supporting strings not the edge of the plate. In order to check the measurements, repeat this
three times.
 Measuring the mass (M) of the plate with the object on the plate using a measuring scale and
again repeat this three times to obtain an accurate results.
 Approximately, estimate the uncertainties for radius and mass by supposing they are equal to
half of the measurements resolution for instance; half of the smallest increment shown on the
scale.
 Determine the uncertainties for T and L by calculating the standard deviation of the 10 readings
and assuming that this corresponds to the uncertainly.

5
 5.0 Results and Calculations:
Table 5.1 results table to show the measurements without the object. The radius of the plate wasn’t
displayed in the table as it was constant during the experiment. The radius was 120 mm.

MASS (kg) LENGTH OF TIME FOR 20 TIME FOR 1 Σ(Lk - Lmean)2 Σ(Tk - Tmean)2
STRING (cm) OSCILLATIONS OSCILLATIONS
(s) (s)
1. 0.75 173 40.39 2.0195 0.0225 0.012

2. 0.75 172 39.38 1.969 0.7225 3.53x10-3

3. 0.75 172.5 38.21 1.9105 0.1225 81x10-7

4. 0.75 173 41.31 2.0685 0.0225 0.0252

5. 0.75 174 37.99 1.8995 1.3225 1.0201x10-4

6. 0.75 173 37.53 1.8765 0.0225 1.096x10-3

7. 0.75 172 37.21 1.8605 0.0225 2.41x10-3

8. 0.75 173 36.94 1.847 0.0225 3.92x10-3

9. 0.75 172.5 36.47 1.8235 0.1225 7.41x10-3

10. 0.75 173.5 36.43 1.8215 0.4225 7.76x10-3

Calculating the standard deviation:

Mean L = 172.82
Σ ( Lk−Lmean)2 3.525 δL
= = 0.392 L = 172.85 ± 0.392 cm = 0.0023
n−1 9 L

Mean T = 1.9096
Σ (Tk−Tmean)2 0.0715 δT
¿ = ± 0.007948 T = 1.9096 ± 0.007948 secs = 0.00416
n−1 9 T

Once the standard deviation for both time and length of oscillation were calculated, it is now the
time to calculate both uncertainties of inertia for the plate individually (without the object) and the
calculations of the relative uncertainties of the mass and the radius can easily calculated by using
this formula;

eI = √ (2 eT )2+(eM )2+(2 eR)2+(eL)2 = 0.33

6
 Table 5.2 table to show the measurements with the object. The radius of the plate wasn’t included
in the table as it was constant during the experiment. The radius was 120 mm.

MASS (kg) LENGTH OF TIME FOR 20 TIME FOR 1 Σ(Lk - Lmean)2 Σ(Tk - Tmean)2
STRING (cm) OSCILLATIONS OSCILLATIONS
(s) (s)
1. 1.75 173 30.33 1.5165 1.2544 1.498x10-3

2. 1.75 174.5 29.82 1.491 0.1444 1.742x10-4

3. 1.75 174.7 29.69 1.4845 0.3364 4.489x10-5

4. 1.75 175.2 32.30 1.615 1.1664 0.0188

5. 1.75 174.2 30.17 1.5085 6.4x10-3 9.425x10-4

6. 1.75 173.7 28.87 1.4435 0.1764 1.176x10-3

7. 1.75 173 29.34 1.467 1.2544 1.166x10-4

8. 1.75 173.2 28.62 1.431 0.84464 2.19x10-3

9. 1.75 174.3 28.31 1.4155 0.0324 3.88x10-3

10. 1.75 175.4 28.11 1.4055 1.6384 5.23x10-3

Calculating the standard deviation:

Mean L = 174.12 cm
Σ ( Lk−Lmean)2 6.856 δL
= = 0.762 L = 174.12 ± 0.762 cm = 0.00438
n−1 9 L

Mean T = 1.4778
Σ (Tk−Tmean)2 0.0411 δT
¿ = ± 0.004568 T = 1.4788 ± 0.004568 secs = 0.00309
n−1 9 T

Calculating the relative uncertainties of mass and radius:

eI = √ (2 eT )2+(eM )2+(2 eR)2 +(eL)2 = 0.018

7
Subtracting the plate’s inertia from the total inertia (object + plate) to get the inertia of the object on
the plate using this equation:

IO = IT - IP = √(δIT )2+(δIP)2=δIO = 0.3305

6.0 Discussion:

The expectations of the percentage error is less than 1 on all such as time, length and radius apart
from the mass because it has higher value. Therefore, it is an enormous contributing cause to why
the total percentage uncertainty of the whole experiment was high.

There were three problems in the experiment that contributed to the overall uncertainly in the
measured inertia. The biggest problem was the subtraction (IO = IT - IP) between the plate’s inertia
and the total inertia (plate + object). The second problem was the scale as the scale that was used in
this experiment wasn’t measures the weights very accurately for instance; weighs max weight of 2
kg with more divisions. Also the inertia of the plate must have less mass than that of the object
placed on it.

There are some things could have been done to improve the experiment to obtain better and
accurate results. To begin with, measurements tools for measuring the radius and lengths of the
string. A 4 meter measuring tape was given to measure the length of the three strings and the
radius. However this measuring tape was made to measure a wider range of things and so it’s to not
suitable for this experiment and to reduce the uncertainty, a short ranging measuring tool with more
intricate increments could help.

Variables with object Measurements Uncertainty Percentage

Radius 120mm 0.416
length 172.85 cm 0.438
time 1.9096 secs 0.309
mass 1.75 kg 1.4

Variables without object Measurements Uncertainty Percentage

radius 120 mm 0.416
length 172.85 cm 0.23
time 1.9096 secs 0.416
mass 0.75 kg 3.3

7.0 Conclusion:

To conclude, this experimentation was done to analyse the errors happens in the experiments. In
fact, errors can be found anywhere however noticing the errors from early stage can help so there is
time to improve it. However, Confidence plays an important role in a system success as well as being
confident in a success of a system is the important objective of any project and that comes alongside
with the knowledge and the experience of the engineer.

8
8.0 References:

 (trifilar platform system diagram) from

[Link]
 Engineering dynamics Jerry H. Ginsberg 1944- New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press 2008.
 Engineering mechanics. Dynamics Robert: W. Soutas-Little Daniel J. Inman 1947- Upper Saddle
River, NJ : Prentice Hall 1999.
 The experimental sheet.