Friction Model for a rolling disk

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of modeling friction for a rolling disk in mechanical engineering. A paradox arises when using a single point friction model, as it leads to conflicting linear and angular accelerations. Participants suggest that a contact patch model may better represent real-world scenarios, as rolling resistance involves surface deformation rather than a point of contact. The need for actual formulations, including force distribution on the contact patch and rolling resistance torque, is emphasized for further analysis. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately modeling friction to resolve these mechanical inconsistencies.
f_nosferatu
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey guys!

I'm doing my B.S thesis (Mech. Eng.) and I've come across the problem of a rolling disk with friction. Imagine a disk in real world rolling on a flat surface with no external force or torque applied to it except for the interaction of the surface (Normal, friction, etc.).

Now, since this is a real world problem, the disk will eventually come to a stop. However, if you write the equilibrium equations for such a disk using the single point friction model, you will come to a paradox: The friction force (let's say it's acting on the contact point in the opposite direction of moving) gives the disk's center of mass a negative linear acceleration, while the moment of the friction force about the center of mass tends to give the disk a positive angular acceleration! (Don't forget that the disk is in pure rolling, so: linear acc. = R * angular acc.)

This is why I need a friction model that doesn't have this bug! I think it should be based on a contact patch instead of a contact point, but I can't go further than that by myself. Can anyone help?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would the single friction point result in a negative acceleration of the center of mass? It appears that what you've decribed is a wheel rolling along a surface with no losses, therefore no linear or angular deceleration. The only time you'd have linear deceleration and angular acceleration is if the wheel was sliding as well as rolling.

It seems to me that rolling resistance requires some type of lossy deformation, that involves a contact patch area, as opposed to an infinitely thin contact point.
 
f_nosferatu said:
However, if you write the equilibrium equations for such a disk using the single point friction model, you will come to a paradox: The friction force (let's say it's acting on the contact point in the opposite direction of moving) gives the disk's center of mass a negative linear acceleration, while the moment of the friction force about the center of mass tends to give the disk a positive angular acceleration! (Don't forget that the disk is in pure rolling, so: linear acc. = R * angular acc.)
If the disk is rolling along a horizontal surface, the required static friction to maintain the motion (in that simple model you refer to) is zero. It's in equilibrium; No force is required to maintain constant velocity.

What you need to consider is rolling friction, due to the deformation of the surfaces. Here's a link to get you started: http://webphysics.davidson.edu/faculty/dmb/PY430/Friction/rolling.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a lot you both!

Doc Al: This is exactly what I need, but the link you provided is just the theory. I need actual formulations, whether numerical or analytical. For example, a function for the force distribution on the contact patch (as in the 3rd diagram of the link) could prove to be really useful. I know I can use the simple formula of [Frr=Crr*N] for rolling resistance force, but that won't help me with the rolling resistance torque. Could you provide any further help?
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top