Is my statics approach correct for pushing a 1000lb cart up an inclined slope?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the required force to push a 1000-pound cart up a 10-degree incline, considering factors like friction and rolling resistance. The initial approach used the coefficient of friction (Cf) to determine the force, but it was pointed out that this method may yield inaccurate results. Instead, the rolling resistance coefficient should be used, as it accounts for the nature of the contact between the wheels and the surface. The distinction between the coefficient of friction and rolling resistance is emphasized, highlighting that rolling resistance typically leads to lower power requirements. Accurate calculations are crucial for selecting the appropriate motor for the project.
KramerKotz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I am trying to figure out which motor to order for a side project of mine. I am trying to push a 1000 pound cart up a 10 degree incline. The cart has four elastomer wheels, and may possible encounter carpeted surfaces. I'm not quite sure what to expect in regards to a coefficient of friction yet on a carpeted surface, but I wanted to check my math a bit to understand if I am approaching this problem correctly:

Coefficient of Friction = Cf
Required Force = Fr
Weight = Fw
Force Normal to Slope = Fn = = Cf*Fw*Cos(10)
Force Parallel to Slope = Fw*Sin(10)

So Fr = [Cf*Fw*cos10] + [Fw*Sin(10)]?

Thanks for any help in advance!

I just wanted to double check if I am doing my statics correctly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The motor power depends on how fast you want to go up the slope eg power = force * velocity. The static force gives you the minimium torque required.

This equation..

Force Parallel to Slope = Fw*Sin(10)

is correct but I'm not so sure about the friction term. I think what you have used..

Cf*Fw*Cos(10)

.. is the friction between wheels and ground. For the driving wheels that force is actually acting up the slope not down it. I think you also need to find the rolling resistance instead. I'm not sure if that's typically the same.

Edit: I checked and they are very different. If the wheel doesn't slip no power is dissipated overcoming friction between tyre and ground. You need to use the rolling coefficient instead.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the response. The coefficient of friction method seemed like it was returning really high values.

Is the COF based on a surface to surface contact and the rolling resistance is based on a point to surface contact?

It seems like that would results in some more reasonable values.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top