Determination of spring constant through simple harmonic motion

Trevor M. Leach
Wheaton College Department of Physics
Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187
Abstract: According to Hookes law, every spring has a unique spring constant that affects the
force in the spring in relation to how far it is displaced. This experiment used this relationship to
determine the spring constant of a specific spring by finding how the period of the spring in
simple harmonic motion was affected by changes in the mass attached to the end of the spring.
By using Hookes law, our data worked out to find a spring constant of 5.33 0.16 kg/s. Since
the math given in Hookes law worked out to give a spring constant within reasonable
confidence limits, there is good support for the validity of Hookes law.

I.

Introduction

The area of study of this experiment is Hookes law. Hookes law was discovered in 1660. Thus,
many of the studies involving the law today go way beyond the basic concept and use other
physics ideas that are past my area of study. Although I may not perfectly understand everything
about recent studies involving Hookes law, anyone can see that it is very fundamental to many
modern, complex studies. Some examples of recent studies that use Hookes law are A tale of
two electrons: Correlation at high density by Pierre-Francois Loos and Peter M. W. Gill which
dealt with high density correlation energy in two electron systems and The effects of surface
tension on the elastic properties of nano structures by Zhi-Qiao Wang, Ya-Pu Zhaoa, and ZhuPing Huang which dealt with the bending of nano wires. Since Hookes law is such an integral
part of modern science, the purpose of this study was to put the law to the test to gain familiarity
with it and provide further evidence of its validity. In order to accomplish this goal a spring was
tested to find its spring constant. If Hookes law is valid, and we think it is, then we should be
able to find a spring constant within reasonable confidence limits.

II.

Theoretical Background

Hookes law given in Equation 1;

F kx

Equation 1

where F is the force that opposes the displacement x, and k is the spring constant that gives the
proportionality between the two. This law is the basis upon which we are doing our experiment.
We combined this law with Newtons 2nd law given in Equation 2;

&
F mx&
;

Equation 2

where F is the force that results in the acceleration of the mass m. By combining the two
equations we get the second order differential equation given by Equation 3;
Equation 3

k
x0
m

&
x&

The solution to this differential equation leads us to Equation 4;

Equation 4

m
k
;

where is the period that depends on the spring constant k and the mass m. Now, to find the
spring constant k we can graph the period versus the square root of the mass m. On said graph
we can find the spring constant by using Equation 5;

2
k

Equation 5

slope 2
;

Since our data points most likely will not connect into a straight line, we can take a Monte Carlo
fit of the graph and use the slope of that line and Equation 5 to find k.

III.

Materials and Methods

In the experiment there was a spring attached to a ring stand with an eye-hook and a right angle
clamp. There was a Sportline Model 220 stopwatch to time the period and a standard set of
variable masses to attach to the end of the spring. To start the experiment, the mass was pulled
down until we felt there was enough resistance from the spring to produce good harmonic
motion, and then the mass was released and allowed to start oscillating. After two or three
oscillations we started the stopwatch. Then, we allowed it to continue through 10 full oscillations

before stopping the stopwatch. This was done 3 times with each mass. The mass was varied from
20 g to 150 g in 10 gram intervals. We estimated a reaction time for starting and stopping the
stopwatch and used that as our estimated uncertainty for each trial. Since we took 10 oscillations
the time we measured was representative of 10 periods. So, we divided each time sample by 10
to find the actual period. We also found an average period for the 3 trials. Doing all of this went a
long way to reduce uncertainty. Then each mass was measured on an OHAUS Scout Pro SP402
scale to make sure it was labeled correctly and to find uncertainty in the mass. Once all of the
values were taken, they were entered into MATLAB. In MATLAB we made of plot with the
square root of the mass as the independent variable and period as the dependent variable,
complete with error bars. Then a Monte Carlo fit of the values and their uncertainties was
calculated in MATLAB. By finding the slope of that Monte Carlo fit line, a spring constant for
our spring was found using Equation 5.

IV.

Results

The raw data from the experiment as well as the calculated average period are given in Table 1.
The uncertainty in the mass comes from the uncertainty in the scale that was used and the
uncertainty in the times comes from our estimated reaction time. All the other uncertainties result
from these two uncertainties.
Mass(g)
Trial 1 Time (s)
Trail 2 Time (s)
Trial 3 Time (s)
Avg. Period (s)
20.000.10
3.780.19
3.910.19
3.780.19
0.3820.011
30.000.10
4.660.19
4.780.19
4.720.19
0.4720.011
40.000.10
5.500.19
5.470.19
5.470.19
0.5480.011
50.000.10
6.250.19
6.190.19
6.190.19
0.6210.011
60.000.10
6.750.19
6.750.19
6.750.19
0.6750.011
70.000.10
7.280.19
7.280.19
7.280.19
0.7280.011
80.000.10
7.750.19
7.810.19
7.720.19
0.7760.011
90.000.10
8.220.19
8.250.19
8.120.19
0.8190.011
100.000.10
8.590.19
8.590.19
8.650.19
0.8610.011
110.000.10
9.100.19
9.090.19
9.030.19
0.9070.011
120.000.10
9.500.19
9.530.19
9.590.19
0.9540.011
130.000.10
9.750.19
9.880.19
9.810.19
0.9810.011
140.000.10
10.190.19
10.160.19
10.130.19
1.0160.011
150.000.10
10.570.19
10.560.19
10.560.19
1.0560.011
Table 1: Experimental Data
After we entered the mass and average period data into MATLAB we were able make the plot of
the data with its uncertainty. The plot also includes a Monte Carlo fit of the data and its
uncertainty. It is from this fit that we are eventually able to find k. The plot of the data and the
linear fit is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Experimental results including linear Monte Carlo fit of the data to a model.
After getting our linear fit we used MATLAB coding to find the slope of the line which turned
out to be 2.71 0.04. By plugging this slope into Equation 5 we found the spring constant k as
5.33 0.16 kg/s.

V.

Discussion

The results we got from this experiment were very statistically significant. The model
represented the data extremely well as we got a reduced chi squared value of approximately 0.2
and a probability of 100. This supports the validity of the value that was found for the spring
constant. Also, because the data had such a well-fitting linear fit, there is evidence that Hookes
law accurately describes this physical system. Furthermore, with the Monte Carlo fit we found a
y-intercept of 0.004 0.012, which matches up with what would be expected which is a period
of 0 seconds when there is no mass attached to the spring. Though there was a bit of air
resistance damping our system, good values with low uncertainties were still found.

VI.

Conclusion

Hookes law is commonly used in modern science and this experiment provides support
to its validity. By using it, we were able to find a spring constant within reasonable confidence
limits. Though the experiment was not perfect, it did enough to reduce the uncertainty that it was
able to find good data. The results give us confidence that Hookes law can be used in many

areas of physics to accurately describe all kinds of physical systems far more complicated than a
spring in simple harmonic motion.

References:
1. Loos, PF., Gill, P.M.W.,A tale of two electrons: Correlation at high density, Chemical
Physics Letters, 500, 1-8, (2010).
2. Wang, Z.Q., Zhaoa, Y.P., Huang, Z.P., The effects of surface tension of the elastic properties
of nano structures, International journal of engineering science, 48, 140-150 (2010).