Static and rolling friction difference

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between static friction, kinetic friction, and rolling friction, particularly in the context of a rolling object, such as a cylinder or ball. Participants explore the definitions and characteristics of these types of friction as they relate to motion and contact points.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question whether rolling friction is a form of static friction, given that there is no relative motion at the contact point. They discuss scenarios involving rolling objects on inclines and the implications of different friction definitions found in textbooks and online resources.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications about the nature of friction in rolling scenarios. Some have offered detailed explanations regarding the mechanics involved, while others express confusion over conflicting information from different sources. There is an ongoing exploration of how to apply friction coefficients in specific problems.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints such as the definitions provided in textbooks and the need to consider real-world factors like deformation of surfaces. There is also a reference to the specific context of a Grade 12 physics problem involving coefficients of friction.

alingy1
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Is rolling friction considered static friction?
After all, the two surfaces are not moving at the point of contact.

My textbook separates static and kinetic friction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are talking about something such as a cylinder rolling down on an incline? If so then only static friction is considered because it is not slipping. So yes you are right.
 
Sorry I made a mistake:
What I wrote:
My textbook separates static and [/b]kinetic[/b] friction.
What I wanted to write:
My textbook separates static and [/b]rolling[/b] friction.
 
"You are absolutely right that there is no relative motion at the point of contact, so it is not kinetic friction. It is also not static friction since the wheel is moving, though the point of contact is not; if there were no rolling friction, the wheel would continue forever on a perfectly level surface. "
-"Richard J. Plano Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University"
http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00698.htm

Then:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/friction_rolling.htm#.UrpEQZFlPls says that it is both static and kinetic!

What is going on here!?
 
alingy1 said:
"You are absolutely right that there is no relative motion at the point of contact, so it is not kinetic friction. It is also not static friction since the wheel is moving, though the point of contact is not; if there were no rolling friction, the wheel would continue forever on a perfectly level surface. "
-"Richard J. Plano Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University"
http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00698.htm

Then:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/friction_rolling.htm#.UrpEQZFlPls says that it is both static and kinetic!

What is going on here!?
First you have to understand what friction is.Friction is the force resisting the relative motion of two surfaces in contact
Friction only exist between surfaces in contact.
Static friction exist between two surfaces not sliding.Kinetic friction exist between two surfaces sliding.
 
alingy1 said:
"You are absolutely right that there is no relative motion at the point of contact, so it is not kinetic friction. It is also not static friction since the wheel is moving, though the point of contact is not; if there were no rolling friction, the wheel would continue forever on a perfectly level surface. "
-"Richard J. Plano Professor of Physics emeritus, Rutgers University"
http://www.Newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00698.htm

Then:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/friction_rolling.htm#.UrpEQZFlPls says that it is both static and kinetic!

What is going on here!?

What is going on here? It is the difference between a real word phenomenon and its simple model.
Imagine a wheel or ball that can roll. If both the ball and the ground are absolutely hard, neither of them deform, then the point of contact is really a single point. When that point on the ball moves with respect to the ground, (the ball slides) it is kinetic friction. If the contact point is in rest with respect to the ground, (the ball rolls) it is static friction. Both friction forces are parallel to the ground and their point of application is at the contact point.

Without any other forces parallel with the surface, kinetic friction would slow down a sliding ball.
When the ball rolls with constant velocity, the static friction is zero. When some force accelerates the rolling ball, the static friction opposes the relative motion between the ball and ground, and represents a non-zero force.


In the real word, the ball and ground both can deform and they are in contact along a surface. Your second URL explains it. See also http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rolling-resistance.html.

The forces along the elementary surfaces of contact add up to a force and a torque. The point of application of that force is not exactly below the centre of the ball as in case of ideal rolling, but a bit away from it, and it is not horizontal. That is rolling resistance or rolling friction. The rolling resistance will stop the rolling motion of the ball sooner or later.


ehild
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks for the detailed answer. In my physics problem (Grade 12), they give me the coefficients of static, kinetic and rolling friction. For a problem with a ball rolling, should I simply plug in F=uN, where F is the force of friction, u is the respective coefficient (in this case, rolling coefficient) and N is the normal force?
 
In case of kinetic friction, F=uN. The static friction is not a defined value, uN is only the upper bound, Fs≤uN. The exact value is determined by the problem and the rolling condition. If the ball rolls on horizontal surface, and no other force acts on it, the force of static friction is zero.
As for the rolling friction, it depends how it was defined, but I think you can use F=uN.

ehild
 
So, the coefficients of rolling friction take into account the nondominant static and kinetic friction forces too?

Thank you so much. Your explanations are very clear.
 
  • #10
Oh I had an interesting thought in my head. If a cylinder rolls one way, and a force is applied to it in the opposing way, would there be static friction or rolling friction?
(Sorry, I have a friction thinking cap on.)
 
  • #11
You need to take rolling friction into account if the problem says it so. Usually it is much less than kinetic friction.

Now, if a cylinder rolls in some direction and a force is applied in the opposite direction, the cylinder will slow down. Its linear acceleration is determined by the applied force and the static friction. ma=F +fs. The angular acceleration is α = τ(torque)/I(moment of inertia). If it goes on rolling, the angular velocity of rotation is ω=-v/R , (if you take anticlockwise rotation positive) and the angular acceleration is α = -a/R.
Assume that the force is applied at the axis of the cylinder. It has no torque with respect to the axis. The torque of the force of friction has to slow down the the rotation: fs has to point forward.

Its torque is τ=R fs, with respect to the CM. The angular acceleration is α=Rfs/I. The linear acceleration is a=-αR=-R2fs/I.
ma=F+fs= -R2fsm/I, so fs(1+mR2/I))=-F. As F points backwards, fs points forward as we supposed.


In case the force is applied somewhere else (not at the axis), its torque also counts, and you can not decide the direction of the static friction beforehand. Take on a direction for fs, write up the equation for the forces and for the torques and apply the rolling condition. You will get fs, both magnitude and direction.

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
934
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K