Force needed turn robot wheel in stationary position

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the force required to turn the front wheel of a stationary 4-wheel robot weighing 200 lb, focusing on the mechanics of friction and torque involved in the process. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and assumptions related to the contact zone of the wheel.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to understand the force needed to turn a stationary wheel and requests a breakdown of the math involved.
  • Another participant clarifies that the scenario is akin to turning the steering wheel of a stopped car, but emphasizes that each wheel operates independently.
  • A participant suggests that while the problem is complex, a reasonable approximation can be made by considering the contact zone between the tire and the ground as circular and uniformly loaded.
  • There is a discussion about dividing the contact zone into nested annular sub zones to calculate the friction torque, with one participant questioning the choice of annular over other shapes like rectangular.
  • Another participant explains that using concentric circles simplifies the calculations for torque contributions from each segment of the contact zone.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions made regarding the shape and load distribution of the contact zone, with acknowledgment that more complex models exist but may not be necessary for this scenario.
  • One participant notes that friction torque is generally not very sensitive to small changes in contact area or geometry, suggesting that a circular model can yield reasonable estimates.
  • A later reply emphasizes the practicality of conducting real-world tests with an actual wheel to obtain more accurate results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions regarding the contact zone's shape and load distribution, indicating that there is no consensus on the best approach to calculate the required force.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of precise data on the contact zone's shape and load distribution, as well as the dependence on the assumptions made in the calculations. The discussion acknowledges the existence of more complex models that are not fully explored.

bluedragon
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How much force is required to turn the front wheel of a 4 wheel robot that weighs 200lb. Assume the wheel is 6inches wide, has a diameter of 12 inches (rubber). I would like to know how much force is required to turn a single wheel left or right when it is in stationary (non-moving) position.

If anyone can help, can you please break down the math? I would like to be able to scale this down (or up) to explore various weight sizes.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You mean to turn the wheels as you would by turning the steering wheel of a stopped car, right?
 
@jackwhirl yeah similarly, but each wheel is independent. and there is no steering column or pinion. The wheels are attached to the frame and pivot on an axis at the center of the wheel
 
The detail problem is almost unsolvable but you can get a working answer reasonably easily .

There is a contact zone between the bottom of the tyre and the road . Make the approximation that this zone is circular and that the steering axis goes through the centre . Make the further approximation that the wheel load is uniformly distributed over the contact zone .

Divide the contact zone into several nested annular sub zones . Work out the friction torque for each sub zone and sum to get the total friction torque .

It is easiest to use a relatively small number of sub zones and get the answer numerically but you can use calculus if preferred ..

Thus is essentially the same procedure as used to work out the load carrying capacity of clutch plates .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jackwhirl
Nidum said:
Divide the contact zone into several nested annular sub zones .
I'm with you until this point, Nidum. Why annular, instead of rectangular or even a line?
 
It comes from dividing the contact zone into many segments using concentric circles and equally spaced radial lines .The torque contribution from each segment is then very easy to calculate . It turns out though that the number of segments per annular ring cancels in the calculations and that the basic annular subzone dimensions are all that is needed .

Circular sub division is easiest because of the assumed circular shape of the contact zone ..
 
Last edited:
Dart board.jpg
 
Nidum said:
Circular sub division is easiest because of the assumed circular shape of the contact zone ..
Which would obviously be the case if the wheel is spherical, or on its side. I just don't see where you find that in the original post.
 
With the sparse data available there is no way of determining the exact shape of the contact zone or the distribution of load over the contact zone .

Assuming a circular contact zone and uniform load distribution does allow an approximate value for the steering torque to be obtained .

There are more complex versions of the basic calculation using rectangular or elliptic contact zones and load distribution based on an empirical rule . There are also more comprehensive analytic solutions and linear and non linear FEA .

For the present purpose though the circular contact zone model is the best that can be done . Calculate a value . Multiply by a safety factor for design purposes .
 
  • #10
For a given load friction torque in this type of problem is not usually very sensitive to small changes in contact area or contact geometry . A good estimate of the contact area and the assumption of it being circular does actually give reasonable answers in most cases .

This is for reasonably rigid wheels with solid rubber tyres or properly inflated pneumatic tyres .
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I'll add my usual rider though - it's many times easier to do a practical test with a real wheel .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K