Finding the friction force for a rotating body

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a solid cylinder being dragged over a surface by a constant force at an angle, while rolling without gliding. The participants are tasked with finding the friction force acting on the cylinder, utilizing Newton's second law and rotational dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the forces acting on the cylinder, questioning the implications of rolling without friction and the nature of static versus kinetic friction. There are discussions about the correct application of force balance equations and torque considerations, particularly regarding the line of action of forces.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the relationships between linear and angular accelerations, as well as the role of friction in the context of rolling without slipping. There is an ongoing examination of the forces involved and the equations that govern the motion of the cylinder, with some participants expressing uncertainty about specific details.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity in the problem statement regarding the presence of friction, leading to discussions about the definitions and assumptions related to static and kinetic friction in the context of pure rolling motion.

PhyIsOhSoHard
Messages
157
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A solid cylinder is dragged over a surface by a constant force F that has an angle θ with horizontal. It rolls without friction around its symmetrical axis. The mass is M and radius is R and moment of inertia is I=\frac{1}{2}MR^2
The cylinder rolls on the surface without gliding.

Use Newton's 2nd law for the center of mass and the rotation equation to find the friction force.


Homework Equations


Center of mass:
\sum F_z=Ma_{CM}

Rotation equation:
\sum \tau_z=I_{CM}\alpha_z


The Attempt at a Solution


FBD:
fbYXHsg.gif


Is this FBD correct?

I'm not sure what forces I have here because both the F force and normal force have a line of action through the center so they have no torque. What did I draw wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your problem statement says it rolls *without* friction, but then asks you to calculate the friction. Can you clarify this please?
 
cepheid, I think he means no kinetic friction, because the cylinder rolls without gliding, so only the static friction.
 
cepheid said:
Your problem statement says it rolls *without* friction, but then asks you to calculate the friction. Can you clarify this please?

I believe what they mean is that it is a "pure rolling" where there isn't any equation of the form f=\mu n
They want the friction force on the cylinder. So there is still a friction force "f" that has to be considered in Newton's second law.

I believe this is so because the normal force's line of action goes through the center of mass?
 
PhyIsOhSoHard said:
I'm not sure what forces I have here because both the F force and normal force have a line of action through the center so they have no torque. What did I draw wrong?

Sure, but the line of action of the friction force does not pass through the centre.

I think the approach for this problem is to find the acceleration of the centre of mass using the force balance equation. For rolling without slipping, the linear and angular accelerations are related to each other in a simple way, so that will help you with the torque balance equation.

Panphobia said:
cepheid, I think he means no kinetic friction, because the cylinder rolls without gliding, so only the static friction.

Right, thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
cepheid said:
Sure, but the line of action of the friction force does not pass through the centre.

I think the approach for this problem is to find the acceleration of the centre of mass using the force balance equation. For rolling without slipping, the linear and angular accelerations are related to each other in a simple way, so that will help you with the torque balance equation.

By the force balance equation you mean this right?
\sum F_z=Ma_{CM}

So I have:
a_{CM}=\frac{\sum F_z}{M}

My mass is known but I don't know what forces that act on the cylinder. Would it be correct to write that:
\sum F_z=F-f

??
 
Last edited:
PhyIsOhSoHard said:
By the force balance equation you mean this right?
\sum F_z=Ma_{CM}

So I have:
a_{CM}=frac{\sum F_z}{M}

My mass is known but I don't know what forces that act on the cylinder. Would it be correct to write that:
\sum F_z=F-f

??

Yes, that is what I meant by the force balance equation. I'm confused by why you have a subscript z on your force. If z is the long axis of the cylinder (i.e. it comes out of the page), then this subscript makes sense for the torque equation, because you're summing the torques that are in the z-direction. However, for the force, none of the forces are in the z direction, they all lie in the xy-plane (the page). You have two summations, one for x, and one for y. If you were trying to sum the horizontal (x) forces, it should not be F - f, since F is not entirely horizontal. You have to resolve it into components.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
cepheid said:
Yes, that is what I meant by the force balance equation. I'm confused by why you have a subscript z on your force. If z is the long axis of the cylinder (i.e. it comes out of the page), then this subscript makes sense for the torque equation, because you're summing the torques that are in the z-direction. However, for the force, none of the forces are in the z direction, they all lie in the xy-plane (the page). You have two summations, one for x, and one for y. If you were trying to sum the horizontal (x) forces, it should not be F - f, since F is not entirely horizontal. You have to resolve it into components.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. To be fair, I just copied exactly what my professor wrote during my lecture. Maybe he made a mistake. :)

And you're absolutely right about the component. For some reason I completely forgot about that.

a_{CM}=\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}

I know that the relation between angular and linear acceleration is a=R\cdot \alpha

We know the radius, so we can express the linear acceleration in terms of the angular acceleration:

R\cdot \alpha=\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}

This can be inserted into our rotation equation:

\sum \tau_z=I_{CM}\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

We know that the moment of inertia for the solid cylinder:

\sum \tau_z=\frac{1}{2}MR^2\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

Now there's only the torque forces left.
My guess is that only the friction force has a torque?

So that leaves:

f\cdot R=\frac{1}{2}MR^2\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

And then of course the equation can be simplified and then everything is known except for the friction force.

Does this sound correct?
 
PhyIsOhSoHard said:
Yeah, I understand what you mean. To be fair, I just copied exactly what my professor wrote during my lecture. Maybe he made a mistake. :)

And you're absolutely right about the component. For some reason I completely forgot about that.

a_{CM}=\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}

I know that the relation between angular and linear acceleration is a=R\cdot \alpha

We know the radius, so we can express the linear acceleration in terms of the angular acceleration:

R\cdot \alpha=\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}

This can be inserted into our rotation equation:

\sum \tau_z=I_{CM}\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

We know that the moment of inertia for the solid cylinder:

\sum \tau_z=\frac{1}{2}MR^2\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

Now there's only the torque forces left.
My guess is that only the friction force has a torque?

So that leaves:

f\cdot R=\frac{1}{2}MR^2\frac{\frac{F\cdot cos(\theta)-f}{M}}{R}

And then of course the equation can be simplified and then everything is known except for the friction force.

Does this sound correct?

It looks okay to me, algebraically. I believe you are correct that only the friction force causes a torque in this situation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K