EGGN 350: MEL II

Helical Springs
Section : Bench #6
Rachel Chaggaris & Quinn Trussell
Professor Jerome Rifkin
Colorado School of Mines

Due: January 30th, 2018

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Information

Materials have been tested for their specific properties for a great time. Knowing a material’s
properties is important for many reasons, such as engineering purposes and for safety reasons.
The ability to safely use materials is essential in any machine. The material that is tested in this
experiment is a closely coiled spring. Like any other machine, springs must also be tested for
their failure point to be utilized in the correct environment. Failing to do so can cause great harm
to other people. An unfortunate example of this occurring is the case of Dilbert Engineering
Company overlooking the safety factors of their springs. A company that manufactured portable
kiosks purchased their springs from Dilbert Engineering Company to implement into a canopy.
The spring failed resulting in the collapse of the canopy. The kiosk was merchandising bracelets
and a young woman was shopping when the canopy came down. The impact resulted in
permanent brain damage. A lawsuit was filed against the kiosk company, which then targeted the
spring company. Eventually there was an unknown settlement against Dilbert Engineering
Company because of their lack of loading properties supplied to the kiosk company [1]. This
experiment is conducted to prevent such instances.

1.2 Experiment Description

Springs can be used in cases of tension, compression, or shock absorption. In this experiment,
the tensile properties are evaluated using a Minitini. Springs are attached to the Minitini testing
frame which consists of a force transducer and a linear motion cylinder. The voltages of the force
transducer and motor are monitored and recorded. The experimental data is used to compute the
spring value (k) for each respective spring. Two springs are initially tested individually and then
in parallel. The recorded data is also used to find the elastic limits, yielding point, and strength
values. An initial measurement of voltage and position is required to determine the relationship
between voltage and distance stretched [1]. Analysis of the results conclude the lab.

1.3 Lab Objective

The objective of this lab is to determine through experiment and calculations the material
properties, such as the spring constant, of two helical springs. Once experimental data is
collected and analyzed, a comparison to predicted values is executed. Based on this relationship,
errors and uncertainty can be made clear.

2. Materials and Equipment

2.1 Equipment List

● 2 helical springs (6.5” overall length, 5” coil length, 0.091” wire diameter)
● 4 washers
● 4 socket cap machine screws

1
 ● MiniTini mechanical test frame (#6)
● Controller
● Programmable power supply PSP-210
● BK Precision DC Power Supply
● Digital Multimeter
● Steel Ruler
● Twisted pair wires
● Red and black single wires
● Wire Cutters
● Red and black grabber leads
● Safety glasses

2.2 Description of Materials

The machine screws were used to attach the springs to the MiniTini and the washers were used
to ensure the springs do not slip off. The Minitini was used to test the springs using axial tension
which is controlled using the controller. The power supply supplies power to both the actuator
box and the MiniTini. A multimeter was used to measure the voltage of both the force transducer
and the motor on the motion cylinder of the MiniTini. Calipers, a steel ruler, and the measuring
tape were used for measurement. Wires and grabber leads were used to make electrical
connections between the power supply, multimeter, and Minitini. The springs used are closely
coiled springs made of tempered steel wire (ASTM A229). Specifications of the steel and springs
are described in Table 4.1.

2.3 Wiring and Instrumentation Diagrams

Figure 2.1 Wire connections for linear motion sensor [2].

2
Figure 2.2 Wire connections for load cell [2].
3. Procedure
1. Acquire equipment and materials listed.
2. Use Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 to set up and wire equipment.
3. Calibrate the MiniTini
a. Test and record the range of motion of the MiniTini.
b. Record the voltage of the linear motion sensor when fully compressed.
c. Within the range limits, move the actuator to at least five different locations,
recording voltage readings and distance from compressed at each location.
d. Produce a graph of voltage vs. displacement to obtain the relationship of
volts/inches. This relationship is given with the equation of the line of best fit.
4. Attach the first spring (unstretched) to the MiniTini using the machine bolts and washers.
5. Record initial readings for the linear motion sensor and force sensor
6. Within the range limits, move the actuator to several different locations, (the more
readings, the more accurate the data) and record voltage readings and the distance from
the initial unstretched coil for each location.
7. Using the equation from step 3, part d, calculate the position at each location using
voltage readings of the linear motion sensor.
8. Using the calibration equation available on Blackboard, calculate the force applied using
voltage readings of the force sensor [3].
9. Repeat steps 4-8 for the second spring, as well as both springs in parallel.
10. Create a graph relating force and displacement. The slope of the line of best fit of this
data is the experimental spring constant (k) for each respective spring.
11. Compare the results with the calculated spring constant.

4. Results

3
4.1 Equations

Radius of Spring, R (in): (1)

0.75𝑅𝑅 − 𝑅 0.75𝑅𝑅 − 0.091𝑅𝑅
2𝑅 + 𝑅 = 0.75 𝑅𝑅 𝑅= 𝑅= = 0.3295 𝑅𝑅
2 2
where d is the diameter of the wire and 0.75 in is the outer diameter of the helical coil [4].

Number of Coils, N: (2)

𝑅 5 𝑅𝑅
𝑅=𝑅 = 0.091 𝑅𝑅 = 54.945 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅+ 2(ends) = 56.945
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
where L is the helical length of the coil [4].

Spring Constant, k (lb/in): (3)

4 4
𝑅𝑅 (11.5𝑅3𝑅𝑅𝑅)(0.091𝑅𝑅) 𝑅𝑅
𝑅= 3 = 3
= 6.05
64𝑅𝑅 64(5.945)(0.3295𝑅𝑅) 𝑅𝑅
3
where G is the modulus of rigidity = 11.5 x 10 ksi [4].

Spring Constant in Parallel, keff (lb/in): (4)

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑅1 + 𝑅2
where k1 is the spring constant for spring 1 and k2 is the spring constant for spring 2 [4].

MiniTini #6 Calibration Tension Equation: (5)

𝑅 = 23.006𝑅 + 50.454
derived from the line of best fit of MiniTini #6’s graph of voltage (mV) vs. force (lb) [3].

Linear Potentiometer Calibration Equation: (6)

𝑅 = 0.5985𝑅 + 0.9024
derived from the line of best fit of the graph of voltage (V) vs. displacement (in) for MiniTini
#6’s linear potentiometer calibration. Refer to Figure 4.1.

Spring 1 Force vs. Displacement Equation: (7)

𝑅 = 6.3832𝑅 + 81.133
derived from the line of best fit of the graph of force (lb) vs. displacement (in) for spring 1. Refer
to Figure 4.2.

Spring 2 Force vs. Displacement Equation: (8)

𝑅 = 6.9145𝑅 + 84.436
derived from the line of best fit of the graph of force (lb) vs. displacement (in) for spring 1. Refer
to Figure 4.2.

4
Parallel Springs Force vs. Displacement Equation: (9)
𝑅 = 13.588𝑅 + 68.647
derived from the line of best fit of the graph of force (lb) vs. displacement (in) for spring 1 and
spring 2 in parallel. Refer to Figure 4.2.

4.2 Graphs, Figures, and Tables

Table 4.1 Spring Dimensions and Properties

Overall Length (in) 6.5

Length of the Helical Coil (in) 5.0

Diameter of the Wire (in) 0.091

Outer Diameter of the Helical Coil (in) 0.75

Torsional Stress (ASTM A229) (ksi) 100

Modulus of Rigidity (ASTM A229) (ksi) 11.5 x 103

Modulus of Elasticity (ASTM A229) (ksi) 30.0 x 103

* Properties of the springs from Helical Springs Pre-Lab [4].

Table 4.2 Linear Potentiometer Voltage Output and Position Measurement

Point Position (in) Voltage (V)
1 1.5 0.98
2 2.0 1.77
3 2.5 2.74
4 3.0 3.53
5 3.5 4.29
6 4.0 5.27
7 4.5 5.95
8 5.0 6.80
9 5.5 7.73
10 6.0 8.58
11 6.5 9.44
12 7.0 10.04

5
Figure 4.1 Linear potentiometer calibration for MiniTini #6 with voltage output as a function of position.
The line of best fit equation is used to convert the voltage readings to the displacement of the springs to
observe their force vs. displacement relationship. The voltage increases as the position increases because
the positive and negative leads were accidently switched. This problem was fixed through a simple
calculation.

Table 4.3 Spring 1 Data

Position Voltage Displacement Force Voltage
(V) (in) (mV) Force (lb)
2.67 2.50 2.01 96.7
3.18 2.81 2.13 99.5
3.47 2.98 2.17 100.4
4.21 3.42 2.29 103.1
4.62 3.67 2.36 104.7
5.36 4.11 2.48 107.5
5.85 4.40 2.56 109.3
6.49 4.79 2.65 111.4
6.65 4.88 2.69 112.3
6.89 5.03 2.74 113.5
5.99 4.49 2.58 109.8
4.98 3.88 2.37 105.0

Table 4.4 Spring 2 Data

Position Voltage Displacement Force Voltage Force
(V) (in) (mV) (lb)

6
 2.88 2.63 2.08 98.3
3.22 2.83 2.32 103.8
3.62 3.07 2.40 105.7
3.91 3.24 2.45 106.8
4.19 3.41 2.51 108.2
4.55 3.63 2.57 109.6
4.83 3.79 2.62 110.7
5.11 3.96 2.67 111.9
5.43 4.15 2.72 113.0
5.73 4.33 2.78 114.4
6.01 4.5 2.83 115.6
6.26 4.65 2.87 116.5

Table 4.5 Parallel Springs Data

Position Voltage Displacement Force Voltage Force
(V) (in) (mV) (lb)
2.96 2.67 2.08 98.3
3.33 2.90 1.65 108.2
3.56 3.03 1.57 110.0
3.79 3.17 1.49 111.9
3.99 3.29 1.44 113.0
4.34 3.50 1.30 116.3
4.66 3.69 1.22 118.1
4.83 3.79 1.13 120.2
5.11 3.96 1.03 122.5
5.31 4.08 0.95 124.3
5.51 4.20 0.88 125.9
5.72 4.33 0.81 127.5

7
Figure 4.2 The linear relationship of force (lb) vs. displacement (in) observed in spring 1, spring 2, and
spring 1 & 2 in parallel. The slope of the line of best fit for each data set gives the spring constant (k) in
lb/in for the respective springs.

Table 4.6 Theoretical and Experimental Spring Constants (k)

Theoretical Individual Springs, k (calculated in pre-lab) (lb/in) 6.05

Theoretical Parallel Springs, keff (calculated in pre-lab) (lb/in) 12.1

Experimental Spring 1, k1 (lb/in) 6.38

Experimental Spring 2, k2 (lb/in) 6.91

Average Experimental Spring Constant, k (lb/in) 6.65

Experimental Parallel Springs, keff (lb/in) 13.6

4.3 Data Analysis and Discussion

The theoretical spring constants determined through calculation were: k (for an individual
spring) = 6.05 [lb/in], keff = 12.1 [lb/in]. The spring constants determined experimentally were:
k1 = 6.38 lb/in, k2 = 6.91 lb/in, and keff = 13.6 lb/in. The average of the two spring’s spring
constants (k) was 6.65 lb/in. The experimental error for spring 1 is 5.5%, spring 2 is 14.2%, and
the average for spring 1 and 2 (k) is 9.92%. This margin of error is relatively small considering
the equipment used might have induced slight errors. The parallel springs’ experimental error

8
was 12.4%, which is comparatively high. This relatively higher error is most likely due to the
fact that there were two springs in the MiniTini apparatus, therefore increasing the chances of
error as there is more equipment that may contribute to the error. Despite the anticipated errors,
the experimentally determined spring constants can be accepted when comparing these constants
to the theoretical spring constants.

5. Error Analysis

5.1 Sources of Error

Possible sources of error include lack of data and inaccurate equipment. If more data points were
taken, the error would likely decrease. With time restraints, the number of data points required to
reduce the error is nearly impossible to achieve. As with any lab, the equipment is not top of the
line and due to the fatigue life of the material can vary from ideal properties. Results from this
lab prove that these errors were mostly negligible.

5.2 Uncertainty
The digital multimeter and MiniTini provided measurements that were wired to be give readings
using the DC power supply, thus the uncertainty of these instruments are dependent on these
instruments ability to perform accurately and precisely. It is likely that the MEL laboratory
equipment provided could induce slight errors to the experiment. The ruler used to measure the
position for the linear potentiometer calibration for the MiniTini was accurate to 0.05 in.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Discussion
After completion of calculation and analysis of these calculations, this experiment proved to be
successful. All errors were within 5% representing precise and accurate measurements. The
experimental average of spring 1 and spring 2’s spring constant had a 9.92% error and spring 2’s
spring constant had a 14.2% error; these are relatively large experimental errors, but still confirm
the results of the lab. The larger error of 12.4% for the parallel springs was anticipated as there is
more room for error when using two springs at once in the MiniTini apparatus. This lab was an
effective way to measure the spring constants both as a single spring and in parallel.

6.2 Recommendations
The only recommendation for this lab would be the use of the DAQ and VI. This would give us a
more accurate reading of voltages at exponentially more points. It would be a constant, linear
axial force instead of stopping at different locations to take measurements. Other than this , there
are no recommendations for the lab since everything went smoothly.

6.3 Comments

9
This was an interesting lab that showed students how to properly use the lab equipment. The
instructions were clear and sufficient materials were posted beforehand to prepare students for
the lab.

References
[1] “Springs Experiment.” MEL Department. Spring 2018. https://elearning.mines.edu
[2] MEL Miner. “An introduction to Helical Springs.” YouTube. MEL Department - Colorado
School of Mines, 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 25 Feb 2018
[3] “Fall 2017 MiniTini Calibrations.” MEL Department. Spring 2018.
https://elearning.mines.edu
[4] “Springs Experiment Pre-Experiment Worksheet.” MEL Department. Spring 2018.
https://elearning.mines.edu

10