Results:

In this test the height of the packing material is measured, before and after it was

subjected to 5 N of force with an uncertainty of BLANK. In our analysis we decided to compare

the specific spring constant to volume and initial height. The height produced data that was

easier to compare and the volume produced data that was more relevant to the desired

application. The initial and final heights where each measured with an uncertainty of BLANK.

Then plugged into the equation 𝐹 = 𝐾∆𝑥 to calculate a linear spring constant with an uncertainty

of BLANK. The volume was then measured with an uncertainty of BLANK.

Spring Constant Vs. Volume of Material

Spring Constant(N/m) Per Cubic Meter

4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000 Peanuts
1500000 Bubble Wrap
1000000 Newspaper
500000
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Volume in Cubic Cubic Meters
 Specific Sring Constant Vs. Intital Height of
Material
Spring Constant(N/m) Per Cubic Meter

4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000 Peanuts
1500000 Bubble Wrap
1000000 Newspaper
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Intital Height Of Material (cm)

Different materials behave differently as you increase the number of layers. As seen in the two

figures the spring constant decreased as amount of material increased for packing peanuts and

newspaper. And increased for the amount of bubble wrap. Below are charts.

Packing Peanuts
Number Of Layers 1 2 3
Volume (m^3) .000308 .000770
Initial Height (cm) 12.8 14.5 15.6
Final Height (cm) 12.3 13.9 15.3
Average Value of K (N/m) 983 843 2170
Standard Deviation of K(N/m) 171 102 456

Bubble Wrap
Number Of Layers 8 16 20
Volume (m^3) .000055 .000137
Initial Height (cm) 12.5 15 16
Final Height (cm) 8.8 14 14.4
Average Value of K (N/m) 140 504 339
Standard Deviation of K(N/m) 28.5 50.6 18.9

Newspaper
Number Of Layers 1 2
Volume (m^3) .00108 .00154
Initial Height (cm) 15.5 21
Final Height (cm) 14.6 18.7
Average Value of K (N/m) 583 222
Standard Deviation of K(N/m) 38.0 14.3
Discussion: Bubble wrap was both the best packing material at absorbing impact and had the

highest spring coefficient. Packing peanuts where the second best absorber of kinetic energy and

had the second highest spring constant and newspaper was the worst absorber of kinetic energy

and had the lowest linear spring constant. From this it can be concluded that the materials tested

with higher spring constants tend to be better at absorbing kinetic energy under the conditions
1
tested. This is reasonable, because the equation 𝐸𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 2 𝐾∆𝑋 2 states that a material with a

higher value of K will absorb more energy for a given displacements. Since the displacements

dealt with during the impacts tended to be fairly small, the value of K will be much more

important than the displacement. This data may not be valid for extremely high spring constants

as they will not allow the material to flex enough to absorb the required amount of kinetic

energy.