Force required to move a object on slope with rolling tyres

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the force required to move an object with rolling tyres up a slope, specifically addressing the effects of rolling resistance and the appropriate coefficients to use in the calculations. The scenario involves a 5-kilogram object on a 30-degree incline.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for calculating the force required to push the object up the slope, incorporating both gravitational force and a coefficient of friction.
  • Several participants confirm the correctness of the equation provided by the original poster.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of a specific coefficient of rolling resistance in the problem statement, which could affect the accuracy of the calculations.
  • Another participant notes that the coefficient of rolling resistance for rubber tyres can vary based on design and inflation pressure, indicating uncertainty about the value used.
  • It is mentioned that the rolling resistance also includes factors like mechanical wheel/axle bearing friction, complicating the determination of an accurate coefficient.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants agree on the correctness of the equation, there is no consensus on the appropriate coefficient of rolling resistance to use, leading to uncertainty in the overall calculation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the variability in coefficients of rolling resistance and the influence of additional factors such as tyre design and inflation pressure, which are not explicitly defined in the problem statement.

adssd
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Consider a object of 5 kilos which is fixed with 4 rolling tyres (like in a trolly) which is in a slanting position of 30 degree angle.

My question:How to find the force required to move the object upwards the slope along with rolling resistance considered?

I tried the force using the F push formula for slope & i tried the coeffiecient for friction of tyres as 0.001

F push= mgsin(theta) + coeff of friction*mgsin(theta)
F push=5 * 9.8 *sin(30) + 0.001 * 5*9.8 * cos(30)
F push=25.542 Newton

Is this correct?

I researched this problem in google, but since the above problem deals with Rolling friction as its attached with tyres, what is the correct method to find the exact force! I s it the correct method to find the object moving up the slope with tyres ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You equation is correct.
 
JBA said:
You equation is correct.

is it the correct formulae to use it to my problem?
 
If the above is a full statement of the problem as presented to you then yes it is; however, I am surprised that you were not given a specific coefficient of rolling resistance as a part of the problem statement.
 
JBA said:
If the above is a full statement of the problem as presented to you then yes it is; however, I am surprised that you were not given a specific coefficient of rolling friction as a part of the problem statement.
as i am using steel surface and rubber tyres, i thought its coefficient is 0.001, but i seriously have a doubt over that coeffienct part..as the slope is steel and the tyre is rubber! is the co efficient i used here is right?
 
That is hard to say because the actual rolling resistance of a rubber tyre is a function of the tyre's individual design and even more importantly, its inflation pressure; as a result, to the best of my knowledge there is no one "accepted" value of rolling resistance for inflated rubber tyres.

As for steel wheels or hard rubber covered steel wheels, I have no background related to those; but, in all of these cases the ultimate rolling resistance is a factor that actually must include the mechanical wheel/axle bearing friction, etc. That is the reason, I am surprised you have not been given a specific value in your problem statement.

Ultimately, your equation provides for all possibilities, including a value of "0" so for that reason I would find it hard for anyone to question your method of calculation with no factor value given.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
23K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
12K