10 IB Physics Lab Report

-Simple Harmonic Motion-

Ege Erciyas 10H (Physics X4)

İbrahim Bal

Word Count = 2683

Experiment Date: 9 April 2025

Due Date: 28 April 2025

 Investigating the Relationship Between Mass and Period in a Vertical

Spring System to Determine the Spring Constant

Yellow Spring

1. Introduction

The aim of this experiment is to investigate how varying the mass attached to a vertical

spring affects its period of oscillation, and how this relationship can be used to determine the

spring constant 𝑘. The experiment uses the simple harmonic motion (SHM) theory, which

models the oscillations of a mass-spring system using the relation between mass and period.

By measuring the time taken for 10 oscillations three times for several different masses and

2
analyzing the square of the period (𝑇 ) against the mass (𝑚), we can determine from the

slope of the resulting linear graph.

1.1 Research Question

How does the mass attached to a vertical spring affect the period of oscillation, and how can

the spring constant 𝑘 be calculated from this relationship?

1.2 Background Theory

When a mass is attached to a spring and displaced slightly from equilibrium, it oscillates in

simple harmonic motion. The period of such a system is governed by the following equation:

where:

𝐹 = − 𝑘𝑥 1
 ●​ 𝐹 = restoring force (N)𝑘 = spring constant (N/m)

●​ 𝑥 = displacement from equilibrium (m)

2
According to Newton’s Second Law, 𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎, and for SHM, 𝑎 =− ω 𝑥, where ω is the

angular frequency.​

Combining these gives:

2
𝑘 = 𝑚ω

Since:

2π
ω= 𝑇
​

it follows that:

𝑚
𝑇 = 2π 𝑘

Squaring both sides yields:

2
2 4π
𝑇 = ( 𝑘
)𝑚

which is a linear equation of the form 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑏, where:

2
●​ 𝑇 is the dependent variable,

●​ 𝑚 is the independent variable,

 2
4π
●​ the slope is ( 𝑘
),

●​ the y-intercept should ideally be zero if the system is ideal.

The spring constant can be calculated by rearranging:

2
4π
𝑘 = ( 𝑚
)

1.3 Hypothesis

The square of the period will be directly proportional to the mass attached to the spring. The

spring constant can be calculated from the slope of the vs. graph.

2. Method

2.1 Variables

Measured Variables

Variables Explanation Apparatus

Independant The mass added 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000,

Variable onto the spring 1100, 1200, 1300 g Premeasured ±0.01 g

The period of The average of the three time trials

the simple 7.52, 8.32, 9.04, 9.55, 10.3, 10.8,

Dependant harmonic 11.3, 12.0, 12.3 s Measured with a

Variable motion stopwatch. Digital stopwatch ±0.01 s

 Controlled Variables

Variable Importance

To be able to find out the spring constant we need to be

Spring used able to compare previous values. For this to be possible

there should only be a single type of spring.

The amplitude is kept the same by measuring 10cm ±

0.01 of the spring measured by a tape and then

Amplitude of oscillations
stretching to ensure that any difference in the stretching

amount is prevented.

The environmental conditions such as temperature and

pressure are kept as controlled as possible to ensure that

Environmental Conditions
the material doesn't expand or shrink which might

change the spring constant.

2.2 Apparatus and Materials

1.​ Digital Stopwatch (± 0.01s in uncertainty)

2.​ Springs

3.​ Tape measure (± 0.01mm in uncertainty)

4.​ Data Analysis and Graphing Software (Logger Pro)

5.​ Weights (± 0.01g in uncertainty) → I didn’t change it to 0.1 since the graphs were

already made
2.3 Labeled Diagram

2.4 Experiment Procedure

●​ Prepare the experimental setup by attaching a spring vertically to a clamp stand on a

stable surface. Position a meter stick beside it for reference.

●​ Attach a 500g mass to the spring and allow it to come to rest.

●​ Use the tape measure to measure 5cm and align it with the top of the weight.

●​ Pull down the weight until its top reaches the 5cm mark and release it gently to

initiate vertical oscillation.

●​ Use a stopwatch to measure the time for 10 complete oscillations. Repeat this step

three times for consistency.

 ●​ Record all data on a table.

●​ Repeat steps three to five by adding 100g of mass on each trial until you reach 1300g.

2.5 Recorded Raw Data

Raw Data

Period (s / ±0.01)
Mass (g / ±0.01)
First Trial Second Trial Third Trial

500 7.59 7.45 7.52

600 8.30 8.32 8.34

700 9.05 8.96 9.12

800 9.49 9.45 9.72

900 10.24 10.19 10.32

1000 10.81 10.78 10.82

1100 11.38 11.29 11.31

1200 12.13 12.02 11.98

1300 12.29 12.21 12.24

●​ The given data recordings are done in three trials in order to eliminate the random

errors and eliminate the errors that may have because of the reaction time between

counting ten oscillations and pressing the button on the stopwatch. A digital

stopwatch is used and reset after each time recording to eliminate any error. The

average of the three recordings is recorded to ensure that the data is as accurate as

possible.
2.6 Processed Data​

Processed Data
10 Periods (s / Period^2 (s^2 /
Mass 1 period (s / ±0.01)
±0.01) ±0.02)
Mass (g) Mass (kg) Average Average Average

500 0.5 7.52 56.55 0.75

600 0.6 8.32 69.22 0.83

700 0.7 9.04 81.78 0.90

800 0.8 9.55 91.27 0.96

900 0.9 10.25 105.06 1.03

1000 1 10.80 116.71 1.08

1100 1.1 11.33 128.29 1.13

1200 1.2 12.04 145.04 1.20

1300 1.3 12.25 149.98 1.22

Step 1: Average Time for 10 Oscillations

𝑡1 + 𝑡2 + 𝑡3
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (10𝑇) = 3
= 𝑇

Step 2: Average Period​

The period is the time for one oscillation:

10𝑇
𝑇 = 10

2.7 Uncertainties
 Processed Data with Uncertainties

Time (s) Time ^2 (s^2)

Uncertainty Percentage Uncertainty Percentage

10T^2
10T average T average in Single Uncertainty T^2 Average in Single Uncertainty
Average
Period in T period in T^2

7.52 0.75 0.007 0.7 56.55 0.566 0.011 1.1

8.32 0.83 0.002 0.2 69.22 0.692 0.003 0.3

9.04 0.90 0.008 0.8 81.78 0.818 0.014 1.4

9.55 0.96 0.014 1.4 91.27 0.913 0.026 2.6

10.25 1.03 0.007 0.7 105.06 1.051 0.013 1.3

10.80 1.08 0.002 0.2 116.71 1.167 0.004 0.4

11.33 1.13 0.005 0.5 128.29 1.283 0.010 1.0

12.04 1.20 0.008 0.8 145.04 1.450 0.018 1.8

12.25 1.22 0.004 0.4 149.98 1.500 0.010 1.0

Symbol | Meaning

𝑇 | 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑠)

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥​| 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 10 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑠)

𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛​| 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 10 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑠)

𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔 | 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 10 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑠)

 Δ𝑇 | 𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 ∆𝑇 (𝑠)

2
𝑇 | 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 (𝑠²)

2 2
Δ𝑇 | 𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑛 ∆𝑇 (𝑠²)

The period is calculated by:

𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝑇 = 10

where 𝑡𝑎𝑣𝑔 is the average of three measured times for 10 oscillations.

The uncertainty in ∆𝑇 is calculated based on the spread of recorded times:

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛
∆𝑇 = 2 𝑥 10

where:

●​ 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥​is the highest time for 10 oscillations

●​ 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛​is the lowest time for 10 oscillations

●​ Divide by 2×10×10 because:

○​ 2 accounts for half the range

○​ 10 accounts for the fact we measured time for 10 oscillations, not one.
 ●​ Percentage uncertainty in T:

∆𝑇
%∆𝑇 = ( 𝑇
) 𝑥 100

2
●​ Percentage uncertainty in 𝑇 :

2
2 ∆𝑇
%∆𝑇 = ( 2 ) 𝑥 100
𝑇

2.8 Graphs

The given graph is a period vs mass graph. The relationship in this graph is a quadratic

2
(𝑎𝑥 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐 ) relationship. The reason this graph is created is to confirm that there is a

relationship between the two elements. Whilst there is a relationship, the relationship in the

graph is not linear but quadratic due to the relationship of period and the mass being

quadratic due to the mass being under the root. (check 1.2 Background Information and
explained in more detail in 2.9) Since the line is not linear, to achieve such a relationship the

data needs to be linearised.

2.9 Linearisation

In order to linearise the relationship, we first need to understand the connection between the

period, the mass, and the spring constant through the units and equations.

The formula for the period of a spring-mass system is:

𝑚
𝑇 = 2π 𝑘

Where:

●​ 𝑇 = Period of oscillation (s)

●​ 𝑚 = Mass attached to the spring (kg)

−1
●​ 𝑘 = Spring constant (𝑁𝑚 )

Squaring both sides to remove the square root gives:

2
2 4π
𝑇 = ( 𝑘
)𝑚

Where:

2 2
●​ 𝑇 = Square of the period (𝑠 )

●​ 𝑚= Mass (kg)
2
4π
●​ 𝑘
​= A constant
When these two quantities are equalized in the formula, the proportional relationship

becomes:

2
𝑇 ∝𝑚

2
During the analysis of the 𝑇 versus mass graph, it was observed that the data points

corresponding to 600, 1000g and 1200g deviated significantly from the overall linear trend

established by the other data points. When these three masses were included, it was

impossible to draw a single best-fit line that accurately passed through the main cluster of

points without creating large residuals or introducing a curvature into the graph. For this

reason, the 600g, 1000g and 1200g data points were excluded from the final graphing and

analysis. This adjustment was necessary in order to achieve a clear and justifiable linear

2
relationship between 𝑇 and mass.
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1. 149

𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1. 184

𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0. 0024

𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 = − 0. 0253

𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 0. 0183

𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 1. 164

The formula for uncertainty in the intercept is:

𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑚𝑖𝑛

Δ(𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡) = 2

Substituting the values:

0.0024 − (−0.0253)
Δ(𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡) = 2

0.0024 + 0.0253
Δ(𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 ) = 2

0.0413
Δ(𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡) = 2
= 0. 01385 ≈ 0. 0139 (𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 3 𝑠. 𝑓.)

First, using the uncertainty formula:

𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
Δ(𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒) = 2
Substituting the values:

1.184 − 1.149 0.035

Δ(𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒) = 2
= 2
= 0. 0175

So slope is equal to

𝑚𝑥 + 𝑛 = (1. 164 ± 0. 0175) + (0. 0183 ± 0. 0139)

2
The equation that can be derived from the 𝑇 versus mass graph is:

2
𝑇 = (1. 164 ± 0. 0175) + (0. 0183 ± 0. 0139)

From SHM theory (check page 3 and 10), the slope is:

2
4π
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 𝑘

thus rearranging for 𝑘:

2
4π
𝑘 = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒

2
4π −1
𝑘 = 1.164
= 33. 92 𝑁𝑚

Relative uncertainty is:

∆𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 0.0175
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒
= 1.164
= 0. 0150 ≈ 1. 5%

∆𝑘 = 33. 92 * 0. 0150 = 0. 508 ≈ 0. 5

So the spring constant with uncertainty is equal to:

−1
𝑘 = 33. 92 ± 0. 5 𝑁𝑚

3.1 Conclusion

The investigation aimed to explore the relationship between the mass attached to a vertical

spring and the square of its period of oscillation, and to determine the spring constant 𝑘. The

2
results obtained suggest a strong linear relationship between 𝑇 and 𝑚, consistent with the

theoretical equation for simple harmonic motion:

2
2 4π
𝑇 = ( 𝑘
)𝑚

The best-fit line that was derived including the uncertainties is:

2
𝑇 = (1. 164 ± 0. 0175) + (0. 0183 ± 0. 0139)

The experimental value for the spring constant was calculated as:

−1
𝑘 = 33. 92 ± 0. 5 𝑁𝑚

The conclusion is fully consistent with the data presented.​

2
The experimental results support the hypothesis that 𝑇 ∝ 𝑚, and the small y-intercept, being

close to zero within uncertainty bounds, indicates minimal systematic deviation from

theoretical expectations. The magnitude of the error bars in the graph was relatively small

2
compared to the total range of 𝑇 values, reinforcing the validity of the linear trend.​
 2 2
The correlation coefficient 𝑅 was 0.9995 (Check the line of best-fit in the 𝑇 𝑣𝑠 𝑚 graph),

2
suggesting a very strong linear relationship and confirming that the relationship between 𝑇

and 𝑚 is indeed linear. The number of mass increments (nine) was appropriate but could have

been improved by using smaller steps. Three trials per mass and a recording of ten periods

instead of one, improved reliability but more trials would have reduced random error further.

The errors in the slope and y-intercept were small relative to their values, indicating precise

measurements. Three anomalous points (600g, 1000g and 1200g) were identified and

omitted, to create a more accurate line of best-fit and is justifiable due to significant deviation

from the overall linear pattern.

3.2 Scientific Context

The findings are fully aligned with the published theory of simple harmonic motion.​

According to Newtonian mechanics, the period 𝑇 of a spring-mass system is given by:

𝑚
𝑇 = 2π 𝑘

2
Squaring both sides gave the expected linear relationship between 𝑇 and 𝑚. 2​

This theory is widely accepted and described in physics textbooks, such as Physics for IB

Diploma 7th Edition by Tsokos (2023).​

4.1 Evaluation

The accepted value for this kind of spring is (35 Nm-1) 3

| 𝑘𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑘𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑 |
|
Experimental Error = | | · 100%
𝑘𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑 |
| |
 33.92−35
Experimental Error = || 35 || · 100% = 3. 09%

An error equal to 3.09% is considered a good error rate and is expected since the timing was

done by human hand alongside the counting and the stretch amount. The possible reasons

why this error could have happened and how this can be improved are explained in the table

below.

Source of Error Impact on Results How to Improve

Systematic Errors
Since the masses used had
been used many times
previously they may have
deformed and broke in small
bits. There may also be some Use new and precisely
masses that have faulty manufactured weights and
measurements since at verify with other standard
smaller weight more precision weights to determine if there
Faulty mass measurements is needed in manufacturing. are any faulty ones.
At higher masses (>1kg) the
string may start to overstretch
potentially acting differently
than the Hooke's Law
principle. This may have
caused a deviation in linearity The mass range could have
potentially indicating why been limited to 1kg and
1000g and 1200g were smaller mass readings could
Overstretching of the spring excluded. be tried.
Small sideways motion would
increase the path traveled
during oscillations, slightly
increasing the measured A guide could have been used
period T, thus systematically such as a transparent tube or
Consistent horizontal lowering the calculated spring some support walls with
oscillations constant k. minimal friction.
Random errors
 Use an automated photogate
Inconsistencies in starting and
timing system that detects
stopping the stopwatch
mass passing through a laser
Human reaction time caused random spread in the
beam to exactly determine the
measured time caused by the
period and eliminate timing
human reaction time
errors.
Small disturbances such as
Use a more stable and heavier
the table shaking could have
Slight vibrations clamp stand with a vibration
caused minimal deviations in
omitting base.
the periods
Pulling the spring down by
slightly different amounts Use a fixed limiter to pull the
Variation in initial (even though there is a tape spring down the same vertical
displacement measure for reference ) each distance every time
trial could slightly affect the eliminating human error
period.
 Works Cited:

1
Giancoli, Douglas C. Physics: Principles with Applications. Addison-Wesley, 2014.
2
Tsokos, K. A. Physics for the IB Diploma. 2023.
3
UAA Physics Department