Hooke’s Law on Single Spring and Parallel Springs

Research Question:
How does the number of springs in parallel affect the effective spring constant under the
same series of load?

Problem Statement:
The experiment aims to find out the effect of number of springs in parallel to the effective
spring constant. The objective of the experiment is to decide whether a single string or 2 springs in
parallel will have a higher effective spring constant.

Hypothesis:
The 2 springs in parallel will have a higher effective spring constant than the single spring.
This is because the applied force is going to be distributed equally amongst the 2 parallel springs,
which halved the applied force each spring is going to undertake, which results smaller extension
and higher effective spring constant.

Equation:
Equation of Hooke’s Law in context of the applied force: F=kx

Background Research:
In the 17th century, English scientist Robert Hooke discovered the “law of elasticity”, also
known as the “Hooke’s Law”. As Hooke’s stated “As the extension, so the force.” It means that on
an elastic material, the amount of extension is directly proportional to the amount of force applied.
Without undergoing deformation, the elastic object could return to it’s original position after the
force applied is removed. A common elastic object is the spring, which is a resilient object that can
be pressed or pulled and return back to its original shape and position after the force is removed.
The Hooke’s Law states that F=kx, where F is the applied force, k is the spring constant,
and x is the displacement of the spring. When the applied force increases, the displacement of the
spring also increases. The spring constant is not only dependent on the type of elastic material, but
also the material’s dimension and shape.
A lot of times Hooke’s Law states that F=-kx, but in this expression, F is no longer the
applied force, it is the restoring force of the spring that causes the spring to return to it’s original
equilibrium position. The -k indicates that the restoring force and the applied force acts in opposite
directions.

Variables:
Independent Variable
Number of springs (in parallel)
- single string
- 2 springs in parallel
Dependent Variable
Effective spring constant: the overall constant of elasticity
Controlled Variables
- the series of load: by adding and removing the loads in the same order
- the springs: measure the diameter, material, and length of the spring before the experiment
- the diameter of springs: 1.2 cm
- the material of springs: steel
- the length of springs: 3.2 cm
- the direction of applied force: by using gravitational force to stretch and compress the spring
vertically, instead of horizontally through weight
- the applied force towards each spring: by applying the force in the exact center between the
springs in parallel
Uncontrolled Variables
- air resistance
- air flow
- oscillation of the spring (after applying and releasing force)

Experimental Design:
Materials:
1. same steel springs x 2
2. weighing machine x 1
3. metric ruler x 1
4. mass hanger x 1
5. 20-gram slotted weights x 7
6. retort stand with boss-clamp set x1
7. chopstick x 1
8. paper cup x 1
9. hole puncher x 1

Procedure:
Set Up
1. Prepare the materials.
2. Set up the retort stand and attach a chopstick to
the boss-clamp set, make sure the chopstick is
parallel to the surface of the table.
3. Punch 2 holes on each side of the paper cup by
using the hole puncher.
Figure 1.1: single spring Figure 1.2: 2 springs in
experimental design parallel experimental
Performing the Experiment design
1. Attach 1 spring to the chopstick.
2. Measure and record the length of the spring at its equilibrium position.
3. Weigh and record the mass hanger.
4. Attach the mass hanger to the bottom of the spring, measure and record the new length of the
spring by using a ruler after it stops oscillating.
5. Weigh and record one slotted weight.
6. Load the slotted weight to the mass hanger, measure and record
the new length of the spring by using a ruler after it stops
oscillating.
7. Repeat step 5 to step 6 for the other 6 slotted weights.
8. Unload the slotted weight and finally the mass hanger one by
one, for each unloaded weight, measure and record the length of Figure 2: 2 springs in parallel with
mass hanger placed in the center
the spring as the second trial. of the paper cup
9. Attach the other spring to the chopstick.
10. Hook the paper cup in between the 2 springs through the punched holes (see figure 1.2 or 2).
11. Carefully place the mass hanger in the center of the paper cup, measure and record the new
length of each spring by using a ruler after both springs stop oscillating (see figure 2).
12. Place a slotted weight on the mass hanger, measure and record the new length of each spring
by using a ruler after both springs stop oscillating.
13. Repeat step 12 for the other 6 slotted weights, make sure to add the weights in the same order
as the measurements with 1 spring.
14. Repeat step 8, but measure and record the length of both springs instead of only one.

Recording Data:
1. The experiment should have 2 trials conducted for the same number of springs, one of the trial
should be loading the weights and one of the trial should be unloading the weights.
2. There should be 9 readings for each spring, including the mass hanger and the trial without any
added mass.
3. After performing the experiment, compute the raw data into the average effective spring
constant by applying the equation F=kx.
Data and Results:
Raw Data Table

Mass vs. Length of Springs

1 Spring 2 Springs in Parallel 2 Springs in Parallel
(Spring A) (Spring B)
Reading Mass Loading Unloading Loading Unloading Loading Unloading
# (g) length length length length length length
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)
1 20 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2
2 40 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3
3 60 6.2 6.2 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4
4 80 8.2 8.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8
5 100 10.6 10.4 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.7
6 120 12.1 12.1 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.7
7 140 14.1 14.0 7.0 7.1 6.5 6.7
8 160 16.2 16.2 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.7

Processed Data Table

Force vs. Extension of Springs

Reading Force (N) Average of Average of Average Average

(serial) # Length of 1 Length of 2 Extension of Extension 2
Spring (cm) Springs in 1 Spring (cm) Springs in
Parallel (cm) Parallel (cm)
1 0.000 3.200 3.200 0.000 0.000
2 0.200 3.400 3.225 0.200 0.025
3 0.400 4.200 3.275 1.000 0.075
4 0.600 6.200 3.475 3.000 0.275
5 0.800 8.150 3.975 4.950 0.775
6 1.000 10.500 4.875 7.300 1.675
7 1.200 12.100 5.825 8.900 2.625
8 1.400 14.050 6.825 10.850 3.625
9 1.600 16.200 7.775 13.000 4.575
Sample Calculation: Reading #1

Force (N) Average of Length of 2 Springs in Parallel (cm)

F = Mass * 10 / 1000 3.2 cm + 3.2 cm + 3.3 cm + 3.2 cm = 12.9 cm
F = 20 * 10 / 1000 12.9 cm / 4 = 3.225 cm
F = 0.2 N Average Extension of 1 Spring (cm)
Average of Length of 1 Spring (cm) 3.4 cm - 3.2 cm = 0.200 cm
3.4 cm + 3.4 cm = 6.8 cm Average Extension of 1 Spring (cm)
6.8 cm / 2 = 3.400 cm 3.225 cm - 3.2 cm = 0.025 cm

Graphs with Trendline

gradient: 8.3512

F=k*x

k=F/x

cm/N = 8.3512/1 = 8.3512

so, N/cm = 1/8.3512 ≈ 0.120 N/cm

The effective spring constant of 1 spring is 0.120 N/cm.

gradient: 2.5997

F=k*x

k=F/x

cm/N = 2.5997/1 = 2.5997

so, N/cm = 1/2.5997 ≈ 0.385 N/cm

The effective spring constant of 2 springs in parallel is 0.385 N/cm.

0.385 / 0.120 ≈ 3.208
The effective spring constant of 2 springs in parallel is approximately 3.208 times greater than the
effective spring constant of 1 spring.
Analysis:
The data shows that the obtained values of the spring constant is fairly constant, as the
trendline shows a strong positive linear correlation between applied force and extension. As the
effective spring constant is computed as N/cm, by dividing the extension by applied force, the
gradient will be the reciprocal of spring constant. By comparing the effective spring constant of 1
spring and 2 springs in parallel, it is shown that the spring constant of 2 springs in parallel is
around 3.208 times, showing that the more number of springs in parallel, the smaller the overall
extension of springs under the same force, thus the higher the effective spring constant.
The x-intercept and y-intercept on both graph is the Origin (0,0), this is because that when
there are no applied force, the springs remain at their original length, resulting no extensions.
The graph for 1 spring has coordinates that form a strong positive linear relationship;
however, the coordinates of the graph for 2 springs in parallel forms a gradual slope in the
beginning, but turned to a linear relationship at around the applied force of 0.6 Newton, indicating
that there might not be distinct extensions at first to be precisely measured, resulting inaccurate
obtained values.

Conclusion:
Validity of Hypothesis
The investigator hypothesized that the 2 springs in parallel will have a higher spring
constant than the single spring. After performing the experiment and analyzing data results, the
investigator accepts the hypothesis as the obtained results corresponds to it.
The obtained value shows that the effective spring constant of 2 springs in parallel is 3.208
times higher than the effective spring constant of a single spring, while the theoretical value should
be 2.000 times. When the 2 springs are parallel, the applied force will be equally distributed among
both springs, which means the applied force on each spring will be halved, by applying the
equation F=kx, force is directly proportional to extension, thus, when the overall applied force stays
the same but the applied force is halved between the springs, the extension will also be halved,
and the effective spring constant should double in order to maintain the validity of equation.
The obtained and theoretical value has a considerable difference in between, which could
be the effect of uncontrolled variables and measurement inaccuracy. However, the obtained values
of effective spring constant for the independent variable stays fairly constant, which corresponds to
the theory that the effective spring constant will stay the same no matter the amount of mass
loaded, unless the spring undergoes deformation.

Errors and Improvements

The experiment was conducted in a logical and valid way. For procedures, although there
are only 2 trials, the obtained values did not deviated a lot, which ensures the accuracy of the
obtained values. The experiment also consists a total of 9 readings, which ensures the consistency
and the accuracy of gradient.
As the obtained value of 3.208 times deviated quite significantly from the theoretical value
of 2.000 times, the potential errors could be personal careless errors and systematic errors. The
potential personal careless error includes the process of measuring the length of the spring, which
the ruler might not be exactly perpendicular to the surface, and the investigator might not be
measuring from the exact top to bottom of the spring, both factors influence the accuracy of
measurement. Another personal careless error is that the applied force might not be exactly
between the 2 springs when conducting the experiment for 2 springs in parallel, this affects the
accuracy of obtained values as the applied force was not equally distributed towards both springs.
The main systematic error is that the mass of the paper cup was neglected during the experiment,
the mass of the paper cup deviates the true applied force for 2 springs in parallel, which decreases
the true accuracy of spring extension of both springs compared to a single spring. There might be
some random errors that are uncontrollable, such as air resistance, air flow, and oscillation of
springs, but these errors are negligible as they do not affect the overall accuracy of obtained
values.
The personal careless error could be improved by being more attentive to have the ruler to
be fully perpendicular to the surface, and measuring the length of the spring from exact top to
bottom by marking the top and bottom of the spring beforehand. The applied force could be placed
exactly between both springs by cutting a hole in the center of the paper cup and hang the mass
hanger and weights through the center hole. The systematic error could be improved by
considering the mass of the paper cup, and use the paper cup for the single spring also even it is
not required, this ensures the accuracy of spring extension for single spring and both springs to be
the same.

Application in Real Life

Springs are commonly seen in real life. They are used in wind-up clocks, diving boards,
sofa, trampoline, light switch, toaster, truck suspension, pen mechanism, and many other devices
that we use in our lives. The Hooke’s Law is especially useful when for calculating the effective
spring constant and the force that will cause the springs to undergo deformation and become
unusable.

Final Concluding Statement

The result of the experiment thus shows that the effective spring constant of 2 springs in
parallel is higher than the effective spring constant of a single spring, suggesting that number of
springs in parallel does effect the spring constant.

Source Used:
• “Springs in Parallel and Series.” YouTube, A Level Physics Online, 27 Jan. 2017.
• European Springs Web Team. “5 Surprisingly Common Uses of Springs.” European Springs, 27
Apr. 2017.
• “Motion of a Mass on a Spring.” The Physics Classroom.
• “Spring and Hooke's Law.” PHYSICS LINE, 14 June 2012.
• “Hooke's Law.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 25 Oct. 2016.
• “What Is Hooke's Law?” Khan Academy.