The effect of mass on the period of a spring

An Internal Assessment for International Baccalaureate Physics SL

Candidate Name: Harvey Husky

Candidate Session Number: 001395-xxx
Hillcrest High School
Midvale, Utah, USA
School Code: 001395

Instructor: Jonathan Miller

Submission Date:
Examination Session: May 201x
Word Count: x
 001395-xxx

Design

Research Question:
How does the mass attached to a spring affect the period of oscillation of the spring?

Independent Variable: Mass attached to the spring

Dependent Variable: Period of the spring

Controlled Variables:

- Materials (spring, ring stand, clamps, timer, and mass set)

- Location (indoor location, constant air pressure, humidity and an elevation of
approximately 1400 m)
- Initial position of mass when released

Materials:

- Spring (PASCO set with a spring constant rated at 40 N/m ± 10%)

- Ring stand with spring clamp
- Table clamp
- Mass set and triple beam balance (OHAUS 700 series)
- Timer (Mark 1 hand held timer with readability of 0.01 seconds)

Method:

1. Attach the ring stand to lab bench using a clamp

2. Attach spring clamp to the ring stand with spring attached
3. Record masses using a balance or scale
4. Hang a 200 gram mass from the spring
5. Lift mass to the point where the spring is not stretched
6. Release mass
7. Wait three oscillations and begin timer when the mass is at the highest point
8. Wait ten oscillations and stop the timer
9. Record the time for ten oscillations and conduct four more trials
10. Repeat steps three through eight with masses of of 400 g, 600 g, 800 g, and 1,000 g

Controlling variables:

Variables that could affect the results include the environment (factors such as air pressure and
elevation), the equipment used, and how the mass is released and timed. The investigation was
 001395-xxx

conducted in the same room and the same time and with the same equipment. Although the same
spring is used, the force the spring exerts increases may not be linearly proportional to the
distance it is stretched. To minimize systematic error, the mass was released from the same point
for all 25 trials. The mass was lifted until the spring was in its equilibrium length with no mass
attached before release. Identical 200 gram masses were hung from the spring in series and I
timed all trials using the same timer and method.

Data collection and processing

The time taken for ten periods of the spring oscillation was recorded in seconds for five trials
with five different masses, measured in grams (table 1).

Raw data

Mass (± 1 g) Time for ten periods (± 0.3 s)

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Average

200 g

400 g

600 g

800 g

1000 g

Table 1: Raw data of the investigation, mass and time of ten periods.

The total mass of the hanging weights were recorded on a triple beam balance and have
an uncertainty of 1 g (error propagation did not need to be performed because the mass was
recorded for each variation separately, not the sum of individual 200 g masses). The greatest
uncertainty in the timing was due to human reaction time and approximated as 0.3 second.
To determine if mass and the spring period are proportional the raw data was graphed
with the independent variable (mass) on the x-axis and the dependent variable (period) on the y-
axis. The average time recorded was divided by ten to obtain the time for a single period (table
2) and this value was plotted (fig. 1) with error bars of 0.03 s (obtained by dividing the raw
uncertainty, 0.3 s, by ten). These operations do not affect the linearity of the graph. I also
observed the ring stand flex back and forth as the mass oscillated, as discussed in the conclusion.
 001395-xxx

Period vs. mass

1.20

1.00

0.80 y = 0.6191x + 0.3943

period (s)

0.60 R² = 0.9884

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
mass (kg)

Figure 1: Graph of the spring period vs. the mass attached to the spring.

A linear trendline gives a slope of 0.62 s kg-1 and the correlation coefficient is R2 = 0.988. While
this is a very good fit, y-intercept of the trendline is 0.39 seconds, which represents the period of
the spring with zero mass attached. It is possible that there is a large systematic error responsible
for this value, however it is more likely that period is not proportional to mass given how large
the error is compared to the period. To test the trend, the base ten logarithm was calculated for
both period and mass (table 2) and a log-log graph was made (fig. 2).

Processed data

Average Fractional Period Fractional Absolute

Mass
period (± uncertainty squared uncertainty uncertaint
(± 1 g)
0.03 s) (for T) (s2) (for T2) y in T2
200 g

400 g

600 g

800 g

1000 g

Table 2: Processed data, including error propagation, logarithm values, and standard deviation.

The calculations for average, standard deviation, and linear trendlines were performed in a
spreadsheet using the following formulas:
 001395-xxx

Average: ̅ [ ]∑

Standard deviation: √ ∑ ̅

∑ ∑ ∑
Slope:
∑ ∑

∑ (∑ ) ∑ ∑
Intercept:
∑ ∑

By taking the logarithm of mas and period, I was able to determine the relationship between the
variables by calculating the slope of a linear trendline.

log(mass) vs. log(period)

0.10
log(period) = 0.45*log(mass) + 0.0027
0.05
R² = 0.9868
0.00
-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 -0.05 0.00 0.20
log(period)

-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0.30
-0.35
log(mass)

Figure 2: Log-log graph of period vs. mass attached to the spring

The slope of the line is 0.45, which indicates that period and mass are not proportional. Since the
slope is near 0.5, it is more likely that there is a square relationship between the variables. To test
this relationship, the period squared was calculated (table 2) and plotted against the mass
attached (fig. 3). This calculation requires that the error in the period be propagated. To correctly
determine the error, the fractional uncertainty was calculated, this value was doubled (since
period was squared and fractional errors add), and then converted to an absolute error (table 2).
 001395-xxx

Period squared vs. mass

1.40
y = 0.86x + 0.11
1.20
period squared (s^2) y = 1.1x + 0.012
1.00
0.80
0.60 period^2 = 1.0*mass + 0.023
0.40 R² = 0.9873

0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
mass (kg)

Figure 3: Graph of period squared versus mass attached.

The linear trendline of this graph has a high correlation coefficient, the line passes through all
error bars, and nearly passes through the point (0,0). This is strong evidence that the period of a
spring squared is proportional to the mass attached, . The maximum slope was calculated
by dividing the difference between the lowest point on the error bar in the timing for a mass of
200 g and the highest point for a mass of 1000 g (rise/run). The opposite points were used to
determine the minimum slope and the intercepts were calculated by adding the difference
between the points used to calculate the slope and the line with a y-intercept of zero.

Conclusion and evaluation

I conclude that the period of a spring squared is proportional to the mass attached,
, and the equation has a slope of 0.94 s2 kg-1 ± 0.8 s2. The evidence I base my conclusion
on are problems in the raw data that were corrected in the processed data. When the raw data was
graphed with a linear trendline, the fit was excellent, but the y-intercept did not nearly pass
through the origin (which is required because the period should approach zero as the mass also
approaches to zero). Indeed, a linear trend line of a log-log plot of period and mass has a slope of
nearly 0.5, indicating the trend was more likely a square relationship. When the period squared
was plotted against the mass, a linear trendline nearly passes through the origin. It is possible to
draw a linear trendline that passes through all error bars and has a slope between the maximum
and minimum calculated.
Given the dependence of period squared on mass, the slope of the line is likely related to
the stiffness of the spring and some constants. The period of a spring was researched and the

equation for the period is √ , where m is mass and k is the spring constant (of an ideal
spring), a value that describes the stiffness of a spring (i.e. the force exerted by the spring for a
 001395-xxx

given displacement). This confirms that is the correct trend and the slope can be used to
determine the spring constant or mass, given one unknown. The slope of the line, 0.94 s2 kg-1 ,
represents the quantity , so , or k = 42 N m-1 (uncertainty in the positive direction
is + 4 N m-1 and in the negative direction, -6 N m-1), which is well within the uncertainty in the
spring constant specified by the manufacturer. By measuring the period of a pendulum and using
the equation (determined theoretically from Newton’s Laws), I was able to accurately calculate
the spring constant.

Evaluating the investigation – strengths and weaknesses

I encountered few difficulties in performing the experiment and there were no major set-
backs or difficulty with the equipment; however there were some important observations that
may have affected the recorded period. The best fit line in the graph comes very
close to crossing the origin, but even the maximum slope line is slightly above this point. This
could be the result of systematic or random error. The primary source of random error would
likely be the human timing (the vertical error bars are based on this uncertainty and are much
larger than the horizontal error bars). Although it was a controlled variable, where the mass was
released from may have contributed some uncertainty. Additionally, multiple masses were hung
from each other, which resulted in different distributions of mass. The masses not being rigidly
connected caused a small amount of swinging, contributing to random error. While the standard
deviation and uncertainty (measures of precision and accuracy) are small compare to the values
recorded, it is possible to further reduce these using more advanced technology.
Systematic error may have been the result of another important observation—the bending
and flexing of the ring stand. As the mass oscillates up and down on the spring, the stand
oscillates back and forth a small amount (with amplitude of about 1 cm for a 200 g mass and 2
cm for a 1000 g mass). When springs or elastics are added together, in series or parallel, the
effective spring constant also changes. It is likely that the flexing of the rod affected this value
and may have had a non-linear effect (i.e. a greater effect on 1000 g than 200 g masses).
Another source of uncertainty, most likely systematic, is the characteristics of the spring
itself. The force exerted by an ideal spring is proportional to the distance stretched/compressed.
However, it is possible that this spring had non-linear characteristics. For example, the force
exerted may have a square or cubic relationship with displacement. Since different masses
stretch the spring different amounts, this could contribute systematic error to the recorded values
and the period equation used above would not be as accurate.

Improving the investigation

First, to minimize systematic error, the movement of the rings stand and the
characteristics of the spring should be addressed. To reduce the effects of the ring stand moving
back and forth, the top of the rod should be secured as well as the bottom (or a sturdier support
of another type could be used). The bottom of the ring stand is well secured using a clamp and
 001395-xxx

the top of the ring stand could be secured to the wall (or other massive object) with a cable,
which should reduce the uncertainty caused by the oscillating ring stand. As for the spring itself,
it would be useful to conduct an additional experiment to determine how close it approximates
an ideal spring. The spring constant can be determined by measuring the displacement of the
spring for a specific mass attached using Hooke’s Law, , where x is the displacement
of the spring. If plotting the displacement versus mass does not give a straight line, this indicates
the spring is non-linear. Either a different spring or different range of masses could be used to
minimize the effects of these characteristics.
Second, random error could be reduced by using more technology in the data collection
step, a different mass set, increased repetitions, and a more refined method of release. To
increase the timing precision, an experimenter can time the oscillations using motion detectors,
high speed video recording, photo gates, or a laser timing system. This will mostly eliminate
human error and only be limited to the precision of the equipment. A robotic mechanism could
be used to release the mass, ensuring the mass is dropped from the same spot each time. An
increase in repetitions would likely result in more accurate values; however, if the spring is non-
linear, an increase in the range of the independent variable may complicate the measurements.
Finally, the masses attached to the spring were hung from one another, which caused some
swinging and possible random error. Single, rigid masses should be used to minimize this source
of error. No major problems were encountered in the investigation and the conclusion is well
supported; nevertheless, these improvements would reduce error and enhance the reproducibility
of the experiment.