Friction of a rope wound around a stationary rod

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum number of wraps required for a rope around a stationary rod to support a 1000 kg weight held by a 100 kg man, given a coefficient of static friction of 0.5. The solution involves applying the Capstan Equation, which requires calculus to derive the relationship between tension and friction along the rope. The final conclusion indicates that the rope must wrap around the rod at least 3 times to achieve the necessary frictional force, as the minimum angle calculated is 4.6 radians, exceeding π radians.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of static friction and its coefficient
  • Familiarity with the Capstan Equation
  • Basic calculus for deriving relationships in tension and friction
  • Knowledge of forces acting on a mass in equilibrium
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Capstan Equation in detail
  • Learn about the derivation of tension in ropes under friction
  • Explore applications of static friction in mechanical systems
  • Review calculus concepts related to differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics or engineering, particularly those focused on mechanics, as well as professionals dealing with tension and friction in mechanical systems.

TheLil'Turkey
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 100 kg man holds up a 1000 kg weight by holding on to a rope that is wrapped around a stationary horizontal rod whose other end is tied to the suspended weight. If the coefficient of static friction between the rope and rod is 0.5, what is the minimum number of times that the rope must be wrapped around the rod?
Edit: Assume the rope is massless.
Edit 2: The rope that is not in contact with the stationary rod is vertical.

Homework Equations



F(friction) = μ*m(weight)*g*θ/2∏, m(man)*g+F(friction)=m(weight)*g

The Attempt at a Solution



If the equations I wrote are correct, the problem is easy to solve, but I think they might be wrong. Could someone please explain why they are or aren't correct? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The normal force between the rope and the rod is not the weight of the suspended mass. It will not even be constant along the section of rope touching the rod.
You need to use calculus. Consider a short section of rope around the circumference of the rod making angle dθ at the centre. The tension is T(θ) at one end and T(θ+dθ) at the other. Deduce the normal force and hence the max frictional force. Get an equation relating that to T(θ) etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
When a rope is wrapped around a pole, things get a bit more interesting. The governing equation that you want is called the Capstan Equation. (Which can be derived with a bit of calculus.)
 
I forgot to mention that the rope is massless in the problem. I believe that in this case the normal force per unit angle will be constant along the section of rope touching the rod, right?
 
TheLil'Turkey said:
I forgot to mention that the rope is massless in the problem. I believe that in this case the normal force per unit angle will be constant along the section of rope touching the rod, right?

The rod is stationary, so it does not matter if massless or not. The rope can slide on it, friction between the rope and rod opposes sliding.


ehild
 
ehild said:
The rope can slide on it, friction between the rope and rod opposes sliding.
ehild
... so if you consider a short section of the rope, the friction is acting along the rope. It follows that the tension at one end is different from that at the other.
 
Thank you very much haruspex and Doc Al. I just finished deriving the correct formula and answering the question. The minimum angle is 4.6 radians. Since this is greater than pi radians, the rope has to loop an extra time around the rod so the angle will be 3 pi radians (since the rope is vertical at both ends).

ehild, if you want to understand the problem, this youtube video might help: I found it much clearer than the derivation on wikipedia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLil'Turkey said:
ehild, if you want to understand the problem, this youtube video might help: I found it much clearer than the derivation on wikipedia.

I think ehild understands it already :smile:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
haruspex said:
I think ehild understands it already :smile:.

Well, I derived the formula before anybody answered, but was not sure it was correct. It was too simple. :biggrin:

ehild
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
I think ehild understands it already :smile:.
:-p
 
  • #11
Thanks for the link, Doc. I never heard Capstan equation before. :smile:

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K