Ground force applied to wheel in pure rolling motion at contact point

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the forces and torques acting on a wheel in pure rolling motion when a torque τ is applied at its center. The key findings indicate that the force exerted by static friction f, which propels the wheel forward without spinning, is given by the equation f = (2/3)(τ_e/R). Additionally, the counter torque τ_f applied by the ground is negative and equal to -f·R. The final angular acceleration α of the wheel can be derived using the moment of inertia I, specifically α = (τ_e - f·R)/I, where I for a solid cylinder is I = (1/2)mR².

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of torque and angular acceleration relationships in rotational dynamics
  • Familiarity with the moment of inertia for solid cylinders
  • Knowledge of static friction and its role in rolling motion
  • Basic principles of Newton's laws of motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of angular acceleration in rolling motion using τ = Iα
  • Explore the implications of moment of inertia on rolling dynamics for different shapes
  • Investigate the role of static friction in preventing slipping during rolling motion
  • Learn about the effects of varying torque on the acceleration of different wheel types
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of rolling objects and torque applications.

ri_ri
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose a wheel with radius R is resting on a non-inclined surface. A torque \tau is applied to the wheel center. In an attempt to prevent wheel from spinning, the ground applies a static friction force to the wheel at the contact point (parallel to the surface), then the wheel starts rolling without spinning. The same friction force also acts as a torque on the wheel around its axis.
This scenario is depicted below:

hCv4D32.png


I'm trying to find the magnitude of the force the ground applies to the wheel - that is, the force which drives the wheel forward (which should be the same in magnitude as the force the wheel applies to the ground at the contact point). And also the magnitude of the counter torque the ground is applying to the wheel (in counter clockwise direction). And also the final angular acceleration of the wheel


Homework Equations


The relation between linear acceleration a and angular acceleration \alpha for a pure rolling movement is given by
\begin{equation}
\tag{1}
a = \alpha \centerdot R
\end{equation}

The relation between torque \tau and angular acceleration \alpha is

\tau = I \centerdot \alpha

where I is the moment of inertia of the wheel around its axis.

The relation between torque \tau, force f and lever arm R is:

\tau = f \centerdot R

Being the engine torque \tau_e, the friction force f, the counter torque due to friction force \tau_f and the moment of inertia of the wheel I around its axis given by \frac{1}{2}mR^2:

The linear acceleration of the wheel is due to the friction force only:

f = ma
a = \frac{f}{m}


The Attempt at a Solution


The following equation is the counter torque the ground applies on the wheel's edge (negative, because it pointing in the opposite direction of \tau_e):

\tau_f = -f \centerdot R

The net torque causes angular acceleration on the wheel:

\tau = \tau_e + \tau_f
\tau = \tau_e - f \centerdot R
\tau = I \centerdot \alpha
\alpha = \frac{\tau}{I}
\alpha = \frac{\tau_e - f \centerdot R}{I}
\alpha = \frac{\tau_e - f \centerdot R}{\frac{1}{2}mR^2}

Substituting \alpha and a in (1) gives:

\frac{f}{m} = \frac{\tau_e - f \centerdot R}{\frac{1}{2}mR^2}R

Rearranging:

f = \frac{2}{3}\frac{\tau_e}{R}

And that is the force f from static friction which pulls the wheel forwards without making it spin or slip, and consequently, the force the wheel applies to the road surface at the contact point.

But I found this link:
http://www.asawicki.info/Mirror/Car Physics for Games/Car Physics for Games.html

And it says:
"The torque on the rear axle can be converted to a force of the wheel on the road surface by dividing by the wheel radius. (Force is torque divided by distance)."

That statement doesn't match the approach I used above. If the force of the wheel on the ground was simply engine torque divided by radius (negative, since it pointing in the opposing direction):

f = -\frac{\tau_e}{R}

then the counter torque applied to the wheel would be

\tau_f = -f \centerdot R

that implies that \tau_f = -\tau_e.

Wouldn't the counter-torque and the engine torque cancel each other?
That means the net torque would be zero, and the wheel would just slip without rotating at all (zero angular acceleration, which makes no sense).

In the same article there is a text below the heading "Torque on the drive wheels". It says the total torque on the rear axle is drive_torque + traction_torque + brake_torque. Let's disregard brakes. It also says the traction_torque equals to traction_force * radius. Then it uses this total torque to derivate the angular acceleration of the wheel (equals to total_torque / wheel inertia). The only way for the total torque to be non zero is if traction_force < drive_torque / radius.

But the article doesn't explicitly mention how to calculate the traction force (friction force), but it states that drive force is the force the wheel exerts on the road (equals to drive_torque / radius). And from the Newton's third law, I suppose that the friction force should be equal to drive force. Then, from all above: traction_torque = drive_torque + traction_torque = drive_torque - (traction_force * radius) = drive_torque - (drive_torque / radius * radius) = zero. Thus, angular acceleration of the wheel = total_torque / wheel inertia = zero.

Another argument: the ground force is what moves the wheel's center linearly forwards. If this force was just torque/radius, two wheels of same radius and mass but different moments of inertia (say, a disc and a ring) would accelerate forwards equally (since their moments of inertia aren't being taken into account when calculating the ground force), which is not true. The wheel with greater moment of inertia will roll slower than the other. This is why I think the ground force calculation should involve the moment of inertia of the wheel.

I already know and understand well that the velocity of the point of contact is always zero for the non-slip condition.
Am I doing something wrong on my calculations? What would be the magnitudes of force and counter-torque, the net torque and the final angular acceleration of the wheel?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi ri_r! welcome to pf! :smile:
ri_ri said:
… f = \frac{2}{3}\frac{\tau_e}{R}

And that is the force f from static friction which pulls the wheel forwards without making it spin or slip, and consequently, the force the wheel applies to the road surface at the contact point.

But I found this link:
http://www.asawicki.info/Mirror/Car Physics for Games/Car Physics for Games.html

And it says:
"The torque on the rear axle can be converted to a force of the wheel on the road surface by dividing by the wheel radius. (Force is torque divided by distance)."

That statement doesn't match the approach I used above …

your approach is correct

the quote is wrong, for the reason you give

as to the other parts of that link, the writer admits …
"I've found somewhere that the inertia of a solid cylinder around its axis can be calculated as follows:

inertia of a cylinder = Mass * radius2 / 2"​
… so he can't remember where he found it, and he doesn't know how to work it out! :rolleyes:

… and so i suggest you ignore the link completely

btw, you can also do τ = Iα about the moving centre of rotation (because it – the point of contact – is moving in a straight line parallel to the centre of mass), which immediately gives you α = 2τe/3mr2 :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K