3

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:

Wheel in pure rotation motion

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).

That's how I'm doing it:

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

\begin{equation} \tau = I \centerdot \alpha \end{equation}

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:

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

This 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%20Physics%20for%20Games/Car%20Physics%20for%20Games.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 $\tau_f = -\tau_e$.

That means the net torque would be zero, and the wheel would just slip without rotating at all.

Am I doing something wrong on my calculations?

Pulsar
  • 14,613
ri_ri
  • 115
  • a) It is very hard to apply a pure torque, and b) there is no friction unless there is normal force though the contact. – John Alexiou May 05 '14 at 16:37

5 Answers5

0

The equation from the link is an approximation. In your analysis you do not include the mass of the car when considering linear acceleration. Nor do you consider the reaction force of the wheel/axle accelerating the car. You can split the driving torque into two portions, the portion that rotationally accelerates the wheel, and the portion that is ballanced by the friction at the contact patch. As the force at the contact patch accelerates the entire car, the magnitude of this portion is much larger than the magnitude of the portion that accelerates the wheel. If you take the mass difference to the extreme and assume a massless wheel, then their approximation becomes exact.

Rick
  • 4,506
0

Your entire analysis is entirely correct and complete (and in my opinion the best way to go about it). There's no more information that need to be derived about this issue. Other analyses are just a different representations of the same facts.

0

The trick here is that at the contact point the velocity of the wheel relative to the ground (with no slip) is just zero. Furthermore the acceleration is centripetal so the forces tangent to the wheel are zero.. So the frictional and torque forces must sum to zero. And therefore the ground force is just the opposite sign and the same magnitude as the force (torque/radius) exerted through the wheel by the engine.

DWin
  • 793
  • Thanks! But - The zero velocity of the contact point is in fact the instantaneous velocity, but even this point has non zero angular velocity, and non zero angular acceleration in this case - otherwise the wheel would not be rotating nor accelerating its rotation. Then, in order to have angular acceleration, there must be a non-zero net torque acting on this point. Furthermore, an engine exerting clockwise torque on the wheel and a ground force acting on the edge of the wheel (causing a torque of same intensity, but counter-clockwise) should cancel each other. Agree? – ri_ri Dec 28 '13 at 01:46
  • And, assuming your line of thought, can you point me which step in the derivation I did something that led to a different ground force magnitude? – ri_ri Dec 28 '13 at 02:02
  • Torque (and force) are vector quantities. Notice that I am resolving into horizontal and vertical forces. Since the acceleration is entirely vertical (a condition for rotation) the force from the wheel center is vertical. I am claiming no net horizontal force on the contact point. There is a net force that is accelerating that point in an upward direction. An instant later, it will lift up, away from the ground. Note also that I am focussing on acceleration and NOT on either velocity or angular velocity since they are not directly related to force. – DWin Dec 28 '13 at 02:23
  • Sorry for the insistence - I have no problems in understanding that the velocity at the point of contact is zero, and that an centripetal acceleration maintains the rotational motion of every point on the wheel. But I'm still not able to see how it solves the contradiction I presented - if the magnitude of the ground force is (torque/radius). Once there is a CW torque T from engine, and a CCW torque Tf (equals -T) that the ground delivers to the wheel, then what would be the net torque acting on the whole wheel? To me it seems clear that it would be zero, but this means no rotation. – ri_ri Dec 28 '13 at 15:05
  • If you are looking for other points to think about then look at central point of the wheel and the points at the edge of the wheel at the same height as the axis and also the point opposite the contact point. Then you can think about integrating over the entire surface if you want "the net torque acting on the whole wheel". (That's not a quantity that I know exactly how to deploy. I would have thought that the no-slip condition imposed a constraint on the system dynamics.) – DWin Dec 28 '13 at 17:47
  • Hi @Dwin - Actually I mean the net torque about the wheel axle - what would it be? There is the engine torque t_e about the axle, and a frictional force (equals t_e / R) acting a distance R away from the axle. Doesn't the net torque about the axle equals to t_e - (t_e / R) * R = zero? – ri_ri Dec 28 '13 at 23:34
  • In addition to my comment above, please take a look at the text below the heading "Torque on the drive wheels" on the link I mentioned. 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. – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 00:30
  • 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. What am I missing? Thanks! – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 00:35
  • This image from the article should illustrate what forces and torques I'm talking about: http://www.asawicki.info/Mirror/Car%20Physics%20for%20Games/Car%20Physics%20for%20Games_files/tc_torques.png – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 00:37
  • I think you are missing the fact that angular acceleration is always relative to a frame of reference, and you are not keep straight whether the frame of reference is the moving wheel center or the contact point of the ground. – DWin Dec 29 '13 at 03:40
  • Well, I think when the article talks about the angular acceleration of the wheel, it simply means how fast the wheel increases its rotation speed around its axle. But, using the formulas like I did in the comments above, I'm not sure what the value of traction_force variable should be in order to the resulting angular acceleration to be non-zero. – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 14:32
  • Also, according to (a = alpha * R), there is no difference whether the frame of reference is the wheel center or the contact point. Both linear accelerations parallel to the ground (variable a in the formula above) are the same (the contact point accelerates as fast as the wheel center, towards right), thus alpha (angular acceleration) should be the same. But, if I just knew what traction_force value is, it would make things more clear to me. – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 14:37
  • Another argument (which doesn't even mention angular quantities): 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. – ri_ri Dec 29 '13 at 16:14
  • You are over-thinking it. The condition for no-slip means that the force from the wheel must exactly equal the magnitude (with opposite sign) the torgue-force. The mass of the cart and the moment of inertia of the wheel only come into consideration when you need to calculate the acceleration that results from that force. – DWin Dec 29 '13 at 17:32
  • Hi @DWin - Thanks for your time helping me. I've read from another sources too that the force from wheel must match the torque force in order to the no-slip condition to be satisfied. I'm just trying to convince myself of that relation through some math derivation, instead of just accepting the fact. And I still don't know what value the counter torque would be, and, if it really equals to the torque, why both torques don't neutralize each other (once both are in relation to the wheel center) and make the angular acceleration to be zero. – ri_ri Jan 04 '14 at 00:49
  • Think of the no-slip condition as "reflecting" the force so that it essentially changes its vector direction when viewed from the contact point. It's not really true that force 'flows', but the acceleration of the axle will be described by F=ma where the force is derived from the height of the axle and the "reflected" torque. – DWin Jan 04 '14 at 00:53
  • Torque force is reflected by the ground at the contact point, which makes the wheel rotate an infinitesimal angle about this pivot point. After that, the contact point has changed, and all this is repeated while the wheel is rolling. Is that what you're saying? – ri_ri Jan 04 '14 at 01:07
  • Once the pivot point has moved from the wheel center to the contact point, should we treat this "reflected" force as a force which causes no counter torque on the wheel (since its line of action intersects the contact point)? If so, why the article mentions a counter torque (which is depicted on the diagram as a weaker, opposing torque than the engine torque) and a net torque? What is its influence on the overall wheel angular acceleration? The article makes me assume that this counter torque acts against the engine torque, making the net torque weaker than the engine torque. – ri_ri Jan 04 '14 at 01:18
  • Think of a wheel rolling down an inclined plane. The gravitational force gets "resolved" into an acceleration of the mass and a rotational force with the contact point as the instantaneous pivot. I have no idea what the article is talking about with regard to a "weaker, opposing torque". I would have assumed the torque about the contact point would be equal to the "engine torque". You may need to consider the moment of inertia differently, however. The pivoting is around a point at the circumference rather than at the center. (This is my LAST comment.) – DWin Jan 04 '14 at 04:12
0

I think your analysis is good and correct. The statement you've quoted doesn't contradict what you've done, it probably suggests a different way to look at the problem.

I think the statement simply states a method in mechanics- transferring a torque to another point (coordinate axes). In this case, from the centre of the wheel to the point of contact.

Mathematically, a torque can be replaced by a pair of forces, with one force at the centre and the other a point $P$ at a tangential distance of $r$. The magnitude of the force would be:

$F = \tau_e / r$

This $F$ is not the friction force.

The "counter torque" term doesn't make sense anymore since we have replaced the torque by a pair of forces. You can instead say the "torque" applied by the ground would be:

$\tau = F \cdot r - f \cdot r $

which is

= $\tau_e -f \cdot r $

sundeep
  • 96
-1

The problem is in assuming the force is forwards at a contact point right underneath the axis of the wheel, together with the no-slip condition. This leads to zero friction force, since their is no friction when their is no slipping.

A solution can only be found when deformation of the wheel is taken into account, allowing the force to act on a different position of the wheel. See for example: http://www.phy.davidson.edu/fachome/dmb/PY430/Friction/rolling.html

A similar problem is when the wheel is rolling and is decelerated by "friction" with the surface. When you make these same assumptions, the force must be zero, since it would otherwise either make the wheel spin faster while slowing down its forward movement, or make the wheel turn slower and accelerate its forward movement. Neither is possible.

  • Static friction creates a force without slipping. No deformation is necessary to resolve the discrepancy. – Rick May 14 '15 at 14:28