Comparison of the Spring Constant Using Simple Harmonic Motion

Experiments
J. N. Barce*, M.A. Viernes, M. Capistrano
Physics 101.1Laboratory, National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines, Diliman
1101 Quezon City, Philippines
*jnabarce93@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper aims to determine the value of the spring constant using simple
harmonic motion experiments by finding the spring constant from the relation of
the weight of a certain known weight and the spring elongation, and from the
relation of the masses of the weights and the period it takes for the weights to
oscillate back and forth. The actual value of the spring constant is unknown, so
for comparison, two different experiments were done. However, the results yield
values with great deviation when compared to one another.
Keywords: Newtonian Mechanics
PACS number: 45.20.D

1. Introduction
In an ideal situation, the energy and momentum of a system once it undergoes motion should be conserved. But
in reality, this is not what is observed. There are many factors that affect the coefficients of experimental motions
that deviates it from the theoretical coefficients. This paper discusses the experiments done using simple harmonic
motion.
According to Young, et.al, a body suspended from the spring is in equilibrium if the weight of the body equals
the force exerted by the stretched spring. Whenever a body is moved from its equilibrium position, the net force of
the body, weight of the body, is proportional to its displacement. Another element observed is whenever the body is
moved from its equilibrium position; the force of the spring tends to go back to its equilibrium position. This force is
called the restoring force. When there is restoring force tending the system to return to its equilibrium position, an
oscillation occurs [1].
No theoretical value verifies the acceptability of the spring constant; however, the spring constant may be
determined in different experimental works and may be valid for comparison to determine the acceptability of the
spring constant gathered experimentally.
Two setups were used in the experiment. One setup consists of the relation of the known mass of a certain hook
weight in the experiment, and the spring elongation which was measured from the original elongation of the spring
compared to when the body was hang from the spring. The other setup consists of relating the masses of the weights
and the period it takes for the weights to oscillate. Both the setups wish to determine the values of the spring
constant of the springs used in the work.

2. Methodology
The materials used for the experiment are as follows: an iron stand, cylindrical weights with different masses, a
30-cm ruler, a digital stopwatch, a one-meter stick, a digital weighing scale, and three different springs.











Figure 1: Springs used in the experiments. Each has unequal size of loops and unequal distances between
the loops at end part of the springs.

The work was divided into two parts. The first part relates the mass of the bob and the elongation of the spring.
This setup is interrelated with the concept of the static equilibrium. The second part relates the mass of the bob and
the period it takes the bob to oscillate back and forth once the bob starts hanging from the spring.
For the first part of the experiment, the bobs were pre-measured using the digital weighing scale. Five bobs were
used in the first setup. The bob was hang from the spring. The spring was attached to the iron stand so that the bob
may be allowed to hang on the spring. Three springs were used in the work. This setup was done with each of the
bob. The elongation of the spring was determined from the deviation of the original spring length and the length of
the spring once the bob starts hanging on the spring. Of the bobs used, the smaller and lighter bobs were first hang
on the spring. This is so, so that the heavier and bigger bobs may not alter the spring constant if ever the spring
might be stretched from the heavier and bigger bobs if they go hanging first.
The values of the spring constant for each of the springs were computed through:


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Where is the spring constant,

is the force exerted by the bob, which is equal to the weight , and is the
spring elongation. In this experiment, the constant was approximated as 9.8 m/s
2
.
Using Microsoft Windows Excel, the data gathered was plotted, for the x-axis and mg for the y-axis. Then, a
linear trendline was added. It generated an equation in the form , wherein when compared to (6), the constant
a is the spring constant.
Since the spring might have weight which might be too high to be neglected, the first setup might generate huge
percent error; so, the second setup of the experiment was done. The weight of the spring will not affect the results
for this second setup.
In the second part of the experiment, the bob was left hanging from the spring. On the instance that the bob was
left hanging in the spring, the period was measured by which it oscillates back and forth. The period of the bob was
measured by taking 40 cycles then divided by the time it took to oscillate the 40 cycles. The time it took the bob to
oscillate was measured through the digital stopwatch. Five trials were done for every bob. The period taken in this
setup is the average of the periods of the five trials done for every bob. Five bobs of different masses were used in
this setup, each on the springs. Three springs were used in this setup.
The period taken in this setup is given by:

ve

(7)

Where T is the period, and n is the number of trials done, in the setup, there were five trials.
Furthermore, the values of the spring constant of the different springs were computed through:

(8)

(9)

Using Microsoft Windows Excel, the data gathered was plotted,

for the x-axis and

for the y-axis. Then,

a linear trendline was added. It generated an equation in the form , wherein when compared to (9), the
constant a is the spring constant.

3. Results and Observations
The results of the setups are discussed further. The graphs of the plots of the trials in the first and second setups
are shown.
In the first setup, the elongation of the spring was compared to the mass of the bob. Three springs were used,
thus, three plots were made.



In the second setup, the values for which the equation generated as , where in the counterparts of the y and
x were plotted in the graph. As like in the first experiment, three springs were used, thus, three plots were generated.



y = 148.1x
y = 176.5x
y = 68.84x
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
m
g

x
Spring Constant Using Mass vs Elongation Relation
Spring A
Spring B
Spring C
Linear (Spring A)
Linear (Spring B)
Linear (Spring C)
y = 163.1x
y = 200.6x
y = 50.01x
0.000
500.000
1000.000
1500.000
2000.000
2500.000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
(
2

/
T
)
^
2


1/m
Spring Constant Using Mass vs Period Relation
Linear (Spring A)
Linear (Spring B)
Linear (Spring C)
Figure 3. The graph of the plots of the three springs in relation to the inverse of mass,

, and square of the

quotiet of 2 d period,

. The trends show that the inverse of mass is directly proportional to

the squre of the quotiet of 2 d period. Thus, the period increases as the mass increases.
Figure 2: The graph of the plots of the three springs in relation to the elongation and weight . The trends
show that the elongation is directly proportional to the weight, which is as the bob increases in weight,
the spring elongates more.
The second setup was performed to further verify the values of the spring constant generated for the three springs
used in the experiment.
Furthermore, the values of the spring constant were compared. Great deviation can be noted from the values
taken from the first setup from the values generated in the first setup.




Spring
Spring Constant (N/m)
First Setup Second Setup
A 148.1 0.734 163.1 11.1
B 176.5 1.08 200.6 24.5
C 68.84 0.93 50.01 1.29

The values of the spring constant are the slope generated by the plots in the Microsoft Windows Excel.

4. Conclusion
Of the two setups, the values obtained from the first setup is more recommended to be used since with the use of
the simpler formula between the two formulas used in the two setups, lesser error was propagated as compared to
the error obtained with the use of the more complex formulas.
Noticeable deviations were observed because of air resistance exhibited in the said experiments. Damping was
observed due to the fact that at certain time, the weight stopped oscillating because of the presence of air friction. It
is then recommended to use heavier weights so that damping may be lessened.
Significant deviations of the values of the spring constant are noted because of the unequal loop sizes and
unequal loop distances from the end part compared to the middle and inner part of the springs used. The loops are of
different orientation in the inner and middle part compared to the end part. The error may be minimized if springs
having uniform loop sizes and loop distances were used.
Furthermore, the errors may be minimized if the experiment was done in a controlled environment so that
damping may be further reduced, probably in a closed space to control the flow of air.
The uncertainty of the values obtained from the experiments was based on the precision of the measuring
instruments used. Measuring instruments having smaller calibrations are recommended to be used so that the
uncertainties may be minimized.

Acknowledgements
The group would like to acknowledge Mr. Rene C. Batac for pointing out the set-up when the spring has mass,
the mass of the body to the period in the experiment which the experimenters overlooked.

References
[] ] Youg, Hugh D., Freedm, Roger A., Ford Lewis, Sers d Zemskys Uiversity Physics with Moder
Physics, Chapter 13, Pearson Education South Asia PTE. LTD., Philippines, 2009.
Table 1: Values of the Spring Constant Generated from the First and
Second Setup