Angle needed on banked corner of road.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lachlan1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving a banked corner on a road, where a car travels at a specific speed without friction. The participants explore the forces acting on the car, particularly focusing on the normal force and its components in relation to the car's weight and the required centripetal force.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the derivation of equations related to centripetal force and the balance of forces acting on the car. Questions are raised about the use of the normal force in this context, particularly why it differs from typical inclined plane scenarios. The role of vertical and horizontal components of forces is also examined.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the nature of the forces involved, with some suggesting the use of free body diagrams to clarify the situation. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions regarding acceleration and the components of forces acting on the car.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the car is not accelerating vertically, which leads to the conclusion that the vertical forces must balance. There is also mention of a previous related question that may provide additional context for the current discussion.

Lachlan1
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



this example is in the txtbook so i know the answer, but i don't really get the second part.

The road needs to be at a banked angle so the car traveling at 13.4m/s can go around with no friction needed, the radius of the corner is 35m.



Homework Equations



the given contructed equations are
Fr=nsinө = (mv^2)/r i get this part, just the horizontal component of the normal force, which is the centripedal force.

then they use
Fy=ncosө – mg = 0
which i can see from the diagram is the vertical component of the normal force, less the weight force of the car. Why do they use this though?

they then divide the two equations.


The Attempt at a Solution



i got the first equation, and initially tried to write n, the normal force as mgcosө, and then substitute it into the first equation. Why is this not the normal force? like for an inclined plane example? and why do they subtract the car weight force from the vertical component of the normal force?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lachlan1 said:
...tried to write n, the normal force as mgcosө...

Try N = mg/cos θ... :wink:
 
Lachlan1 said:
then they use
Fy=ncosө – mg = 0
which i can see from the diagram is the vertical component of the normal force, less the weight force of the car. Why do they use this though?
Is the car accelerating in the vertical (y) direction? If it is not accelerating in the y-direction, then the y-components of all the forces involved must add up to zero.
i got the first equation, and initially tried to write n, the normal force as mgcosө, and then substitute it into the first equation. Why is this not the normal force?
The car is accelerating in the horizontal direction (which can be expressed as the resultant force). This resultant force has to come from somewhere. So the normal force not only involves the force of gravity (in the vertical direction) but the resultant force too (in the horizontal direction).

I suggest starting with a free body diagram (FBD). By looking at the forces in the FBD, it should be more clear. :smile:
like for an inclined plane example?
In most inclined plane examples, the objects are not accelerating with respect to the surface of the plane (they may or may not be accelerating parallel to it, but there usually is no acceleration component perpendicular to the plane). This problem is different.
and why do they subtract the car weight force from the vertical component of the normal force?
Is the car accelerating up or down? :wink:
 
thanks for the replies. No, the car is not accelerating in the vertical direction, so i can see why the forces in the vertical must equal zero. I have been looking at a link at the bottom of the page to a question posted on here over a year ago which was asking the same question i am.
 
The first equation comes from centripetal force which you already figured out.
The second equation is the equation to keep The Car from moving in the air.
So, consider a box on floor => for that you would do N = mg
In this case. N = mgcostheta. because you don't want car to fly from the banked surface.

Just look at diagram(red thing is car(best i could draw in paint))
but
first eqn. is eqn for x-comp.
second eqn is eqn for y-comp

Also note: Normal is always perpendicular to surface and Force due to Gravity is always downwards
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    2.9 KB · Views: 431
utkarsh1 said:
The first equation comes from centripetal force which you already figured out.
The second equation is the equation to keep The Car from moving in the air.
So, consider a box on floor => for that you would do N = mg
In this case. N = mgcostheta. because you don't want car to fly from the banked surface.

Sorry utkarsh1, but you haven't got your FBD quite right. The normal force is definitely not mgcosθ. That would only be true if there was no other acceleration happening that has a component parallel to the normal force. In this problem, the car is accelerating such that the acceleration is not perpendicular to the normal force. So mgcosθ, by itself, is not the normal force for this problem.

Lachlan1, Try this FBD (if your textbook doesn't already have its own FBD).
 

Attachments

  • Car on Bank.gif
    Car on Bank.gif
    6.2 KB · Views: 550

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K