Push/Pull Force of wheeled cart on an incline

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rusty_Shackleford
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cart Force Incline
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the force required to push a 227 kg wheeled cart up a 15-degree incline. The primary formula identified is F = m*g*Sin(theta) + m*g*c, where 'c' represents the rolling resistance coefficient. The total normal contact force is defined as N = mg*cos(theta), leading to the rolling resistance being f = mgc*cos(theta). The coefficient of friction of the incline surface is deemed irrelevant for rolling resistance calculations, as all frictional forces are accounted for in the rolling resistance formula.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with basic trigonometry
  • Knowledge of rolling resistance concepts
  • Ability to interpret physics formulas
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of rolling resistance equations in physics
  • Learn about the impact of incline angles on force calculations
  • Research the relationship between rolling resistance and surface characteristics
  • Explore practical experiments to measure rolling resistance on various surfaces
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone involved in the design or analysis of wheeled transport systems will benefit from this discussion.

Rusty_Shackleford
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Summary:: Looking for the formula to calculate force required to push a wheeled cart weighing 227 kg up a 15 degree incline.

I’m trying to find the formula for force required to push a 227kg cart with four wheels up an incline that is 15 degrees. From my physics classes I thought the formula is (F= m*g*Sin(theta) + m*g*c) where c is coefficient of the wheel material. I have also found a similar formula that uses the radius (r) of the wheel but I do not understand difference between ((m*g*c)/r) and m*g*c and where one applies over the other.

Also, if the coefficient of friction of the wheel as an example is 0.05, how do I include the coefficient of friction of the incline’s surface?

Again, just looking for a formula for minimum required force required to push the wheeled cart up the incline.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I assume you are attempting to denote by ##c## the rolling resistance coefficient. This is conventionally defined in two different (although similar) ways:\begin{align*}
f &= cN \\ \\
\mathrm{or} \ \ \ f &= \dfrac{\tilde{c}N}{r}
\end{align*}where ##f## is the force of rolling resistance, ##N## is the normal contact force and ##r## is the radius of the wheel.

On an incline, the total normal contact force is ##N = mg\cos{\theta}##. Therefore the total rolling resistance is ##f = mgc \cos{\theta} = \dfrac{mg\tilde{c}}{r} \cos{\theta}##. Add to this the gravitational contribution ##mg\sin{\theta}## to determine the result.
 
Last edited:
Yes, rolling resistance coefficient. Thank you again for your help.
How do I take into account the friction coefficient of the ramp's surface into this equation?
 
The coefficient of friction ##\mu## applies to sliding, so isn't relevant here. All of the frictional force (in this idealisation, at least) is accounted for in the rolling resistance ##f = mgc \cos{\theta}##.

[However, the rolling resistance coefficient does probably depend on the coefficient of friction, in some complicated way. That's more a question of tribology, which I'm not qualified to comment on. In any case, you don't need this relationship.]
 
ergospherical said:
The coefficient of friction ##\mu## applies to sliding, so isn't relevant here. All of the frictional force (in this idealisation, at least) is accounted for in the rolling resistance ##f = mgc \cos{\theta}##.

[However, the rolling resistance coefficient does probably depend on the coefficient of friction, in some complicated way. That's more a question of tribology, which I'm not qualified to comment on. In any case, you don't need this relationship.]
No, rolling resistance is quite separate from the friction associated with relative tangential motion of surfaces. And to clarify, for rolling there will be static friction, usually denoted ##\mu_s##. But since there is no relative motion of the surfaces it does no net work.
For more on rolling resistance see 4.1 in https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/frequently-made-errors-mechanics-friction/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
haruspex said:
No, rolling resistance is quite separate from the friction associated with relative tangential motion of surfaces. And to clarify, for rolling there will be static friction, usually denoted ##\mu_s##. But since there is no relative motion of the surfaces it does no net work.
For more on rolling resistance see 4.1 in https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/frequently-made-errors-mechanics-friction/
Thanks, you're right. The rolling resistance arises as the sum of normal forces [which are greater at front than rear] over the curved contact area, whilst the tangential [static friction] forces over the contact area would indeed sum together to produce an additional static friction force.
 
Rusty_Shackleford said:
minimum required force required to push the wheeled cart up the incline.
You should consider the possibility of pushing in a direction a bit above the angle of the slope. That will reduce the normal force from the ground, and hence reduce rolling resistance. Maybe it will require a smaller force overall.
 
Could you field test the actual resistance to rolling of the cart on a horizontal surface of similar characteristics as of the ramp?
You may have surface imperfections, little valleys and crests, that may be more significative to actual rolling resistance of the wheels than the bearings coefficients of friction.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K