FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

COURSE NAME: DYNAMICS

COURSE CODE: MMB 333
MMB 333 LAB 2: ROLLING MOTION

NAME: ASCHLY
SURNAME: SEBAKISO
ID NUMBER: 202202039
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 02 NOVEMBER 2024

1
ABSTRACT

This lab report delves into the dynamics of rolling motion by analyzing the impact of angular
acceleration, angular speed, the critical angle of inclination, and the coefficient of static friction
on two cylindrical objects. The experiment included rolling Cylinder A and Cylinder B down
an inclined plane, adjusting the angle of inclination. Measurements for angular velocity and
time were acquired through manual timing methods.

This enabled the calculation of angular acceleration and the identification of

forces influencing each cylinder, such as gravitational, normal, and frictional forces. The
moments of inertia for both cylinders were calculated and compared
to evaluate their influence on rolling behaviour. Significant findings have shown that the
critical angle of inclination greatly impacts the dynamics of rolling
without slipping. Higher angles result in higher angular acceleration. The static friction
coefficients were calculated for each cylinder, emphasizing the impact of mass distribution on
the efficiency of rolling. The results emphasize the significance of grasping rolling dynamics
in engineering applications, offering valuable insights for designing wheels and other
rotating systems. Through a comparison of theoretical predictions with experimental data, this
study confirms the validity of current models for rolling motion and highlights the importance
of friction and inertia in real-life situations.

2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 6
PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................ 7
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 8
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS ........................................................................................................ 9
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 13
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 14

3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Static friction, angular acceleration, and moments of inertia must all be carefully considered
while rolling on an inclined plane since it combines translational and rotational dynamics.
These factors are crucial in determining how a cylinder or sphere moves when rolling down an
incline without slipping. Static friction is the very important linking force that makes sure that
there is no slip in the process and rather there is a roll. This force acts at the connecting board
between the body and the surface, which produces the required torque for the rotation to take
place. The amount of static friction is proportional to the normal force N and the static friction
coefficient µs, which is expressed as 𝑓𝑠 = 𝜇𝑠𝑁. This force of friction prevents the object from
sliding while rolling thus making it possible for linear speed v to be equal to radius times
angular speed: v = rω (Young & Freedman, 2014).

Frictional forces play a key role in rolling motion by generating the required torque for an
object to roll smoothly, preventing sliding. Static friction occurs at the point where the
object contacts the surface, enabling it to grip and pivot instead
of sliding (Hibbeler, 2016). Lack of ample friction can cause an object to slide rather than
roll, thus affecting the precision of experiments related to rolling motion.

There is a gravitational component acting along the incline because of an angle of inclination
and this component is dependent on θ. This force, mgsinθ works to push the object down the
slope. For an object to roll without slipping, it is the static friction force which will be equal to
the sliding force and that is normally the case at small angles. However, when θ exceeds the
critical angle, sliding probably takes place at steep jumps because the component of the weight
along the inclined surface becomes greater than forces of static friction (Serway & Jewett,

2014).

Angular speed ω for an object rolling down an incline increases as it accelerates. The
coefficient of static friction µs plays a vital role in maintaining rolling motion, as it governs the
maximum frictional force available. A higher µs enables rolling without slipping even at steeper
inclines, while a lower 𝜇𝑠 may lead to slipping (Serway & Jewett, 2014)

4
INTRODUCTION
The dynamics of rolling motion, a physical phenomenon where an item moves forward while
simultaneously spinning, are examined in this article. Rolling motion is significant in
applications throughout mechanical engineering, physics, and other sciences where wheels,
gears, and other rotating systems are crucial components because it combines translational and
rotational movement. Examining the effects of particular parameters, such as angular
acceleration, angular speed, the critical angle of inclination, and the coefficient of static
friction, on the behaviour of rolling objects on inclined surfaces is the main goal of the
experiment. To better manage and forecast rolling motion in real-world applications, the
experiment aims to elucidate how changes in slope angle and frictional qualities might sustain
or modify an object's motion.

Along with analysing these variables, the experiment seeks to determine and measure every
force influencing the rolling item, such as frictional, normal, and gravitational forces, which
collectively control the object's speed. Additionally, the experiment compares the moments of
inertia of two distinct cylinders with distinct mass distributions, Cylinder A and Cylinder B.
By examining these variations, one can learn more about how mass distribution influences
rolling speed and rotational resistance. Lastly, the experiment will evaluate the precision of
rolling motion models by contrasting theoretical computations with experimental data. The
analysis of observed differences between theoretical and experimental values will serve as the
foundation for findings and suggestions about the suitability of rolling motion models for
practical applications. Through this investigation, the report aims to deepen the understanding
of rolling motion dynamics and highlight key parameters that affect its behaviour, ultimately
contributing to improved design and functionality of rotating systems in engineering.

OBJECTIVES

1. To investigate how parameters such as angular acceleration, angular speed, critical

angle of inclination, and coefficient of static friction influence rolling motion
2. To determine all forces, present in the experiment
3. Differentiate moment of inertia for both wheel cylinder A and B
4. To compare results obtained, theoretical against experimental and make some
conclusions and recommendations.

5
MATERIALS AND METHODS

• Steel Rule (used to measure the length of the inclined plane)

• Stopwatch (used to measure time taken by the rolling body from one end to the other)
• Inclined plane (This is where the cylinder A and B were rolled on)
• Wheel cylinder A and B (used as the body that was rolled on the inclined plane to
measure the time it took to reach the other end)
• Weight scale (used to measure the wheel cylinders that were used in the rolling motion
experiment)
• 20 mm bars (used to increase the height of the opposite length to increase angle of
inclination)
• Vernier calipers (used to measure thickness of the bars used)

6
PROCEDURE

The length of the inclined plane was measured using the measuring tape and noted. The
thickness of the bars was then measured using vernier caliper. The mass of cylinder A and B
was then taken using the weight scale. The wheel cylinder A was placed on the plane platform
zero reference and the stopwatch was started the same time the wheel cylinder was released
and stopped when the wheel fell of the plane. Three trials were taken for cylinder A and the
process was repeated for cylinder B.

7
 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Table 1: Wheel cylinder A showing its inclination, linear and angular velocity and acceleration

Numbe Averag Angle of Linear Angular Linear Angular

r of e inclination( velocity(m/ velocity(rad/ acceleration(m/ acceleration(rad/
runs times(s º) s) s) s) s)
)
1 9.04 0.73 0.174 2.171 0.0192 0.241
2 5.43 1.46 0.289 3.614 0.0532 0.665
3 4.02 2.19 0.391 4.882 0.0973 1.215
4 3.09 2.92 0.508 6.351 0.1644 2.055
5 2.51 3.65 0.625 7.818 0.2490 3.113
6 2.16 4.38 0.727 9.086 0.3365 4.207
7 1.78 5.12 0.882 11.025 0.4955 6.194
8 1.72 5.85 0.913 11.410 0.5308 6.635
9 1.56 6.58 1.006 12.580 0.6449 8.061
10 1.43 7.32 1.098 13.274 0.7678 9.598

Table 2: Wheel cylinder B showing its inclination, linear and angular velocity and acceleration

Numbe Averag Angle of Linear Angular Linear Angular

r of e inclination( velocity(m/ velocity(rad/ acceleration(m/ acceleration(rad/
runs times(s º) s) s) s) s)
)
1 6.35 0.73 0.247 3.0875 0.0389 0.486
2 4.02 1.46 0.391 4.8818 0.0972 1.216
3 3.20 2.19 0.491 6.1328 0.1534 1.918
4 2.62 2.92 0.599 7.4905 0.2286 2.858
5 2.36 3.65 0.665 8.3157 0.2818 3.522
6 2.00 4.38 0.785 9.8125 0.3925 4.906
7 1.72 5.12 0.913 11.410 0.5308 6.635
8 1.63 5.85 0.963 12.040 0.5908 7.385
9 1.55 6.58 1.013 12.661 0.6535 8.169

8
10 1.48 7.32 1.061 13.260 0.7169 8.961

Table 3: Comparison of moment of inertia, critical angle, coefficient of friction, angular

velocity, angular velocity, acceleration and percentage errors for cylinder A and B

Comparisons Wheel cylinder A Wheel cylinder B

Moment of inertia (mm4) 0.01472 0.111792
Coefficient of friction (N) 0.01200 00.01200
Angular velocity (rad/s) 13.7500 13.08000
Angular acceleration (rad/s2) 9.63000 8.630000
% error of angular velocity 56.3000 52.10000
(%)
% error angular acceleration 65.1000 63.2000
(%)
Critical angle(º) 0.8000 0.50000

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Average Time = (T1+T2+T3)/3

=(3.09+3.15+3.03)/3

=3.09 s

Linear velocity = displacement/average time

S=1570mm

1.570𝑚
= = 0.247244094 𝑚/𝑠
6.35𝑠

𝑉 0.247
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 3.0875 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠
𝑟 0.08

Angle of inclination

R= 80mm

9
X=1569.9

tanΦ= 20/1569.9

Φ = tan-1 (20/1569.9)

Φ = 0.73º

𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 0.247

𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = 0.038897637𝑚/𝑠 2
𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 6.35

𝑠𝑖𝑛0.73
(2𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃/3)^1/2 (2∗9.81∗ )
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = 3
= 0.0389𝑚/𝑠 2
𝑟 0.08

𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 0.0389

𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = 0.486𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 2
𝑟 0.08

𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 3.61 − 1.571

%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = ∗ 100 =
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 3.61
= 56.3%

Coefficient of friction µ=tanθ

µ=tan(0.729902283)

µ= 0.013

𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = 3.12𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 2
0.5𝑟

𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙/𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = = 65.1%
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

10
 Graph showing angle of inclination vs linear
velocity, acceleration of wheel A,B
1.2
linear velocity(m/s),linear

1
acceleration(m/s^2)

0.8
velocity A
0.6
Acceleration A
0.4
Velocity B
0.2 Acceleration B
0
0.73 1.46 2.19 2.92 3.65 4.38 5.12 5.85 6.58 7.32

angle of inclination (º)

Figure 1: showing angle of inclination vs linear velocity, acceleration for wheel A,B

Graph showing angle of inclination vs angular

velocity,acceleration of wheel A,B
14
angular acceleration(m/s^2),angular

12
10
8 Velocity A
velocity(m/s)

6 Acceleration A
4 Velocity B
2 Acceleration B
0
0.73 1.46 2.19 2.92 3.65 4.38 5.12 5.85 6.58 7.32
angle of inclination(º)

Figure 1: showing angle of inclination vs angular velocity, acceleration for wheel A,B

11
DISCUSSION

Both cylinders showed an increase in angular acceleration and angular speed as the angle of
inclination increased. However, Cylinder A consistently exhibited a slightly lower angular
acceleration than Cylinder B at each inclination angle. This trend aligns with theoretical
expectations, as Cylinder A’s greater mass and moment of inertia would naturally resist changes
in motion more than Cylinder B. The trend for angular speed also reflected the influence of
inertia, with Cylinder B generally achieving higher speeds than Cylinder A at equivalent angles.
This suggests that the lighter mass and potentially more evenly distributed weight in Cylinder
B allowed it to accelerate more quickly. Both cylinders demonstrated a critical angle threshold
above which rolling without slipping could no longer be maintained. For Cylinder B, this
critical angle was observed at a slightly lower value than for Cylinder A. This trend is likely
due to differences in weight distribution, with Cylinder A’s higher mass requiring a greater
angle to overcome static friction and begin rolling consistently. This trend highlights the impact
of mass and moment of inertia on the rolling motion, with heavier objects generally requiring
higher critical angles to initiate smooth, slip-free rolling. The experimentally determined
coefficients of static friction showed a consistent trend in relation to the surfaces of the incline
and the two cylinders. Cylinder A, with its larger mass, displayed a higher coefficient of static
friction than Cylinder B. This is expected, as the increased weight leads to a greater normal
force and, consequently, a higher static frictional force threshold.

The experimentally determined values for angular acceleration and angular speed showed a
reasonable match with the theoretical values, though minor discrepancies were noted. The
theoretical angular acceleration was derived based on the assumption of ideal rolling without
any loss to frictional slippage. In practice, however, the experimental values were slightly lower
than the theoretical predictions. This variation may be attributed to minor frictional losses and
imperfections in the surface of the incline, which affected the rolling dynamics. The coefficient
of static friction values calculated from the experiment were also somewhat lower than the
expected theoretical values. This discrepancy could be due to variations in surface texture
between the incline and the rolling cylinders, as well as possible contaminants on the surfaces,
which could reduce the effectiveness of friction in preventing slippage. Additionally, the
moment of inertia values obtained experimentally for Cylinder B and Cylinder A confirmed
that differences in mass distribution impacted the rolling motion, with Cylinder A (the heavier
cylinder) having a slightly higher resistance to changes in motion compared to Cylinder B.

12
Several limitations were noted in the experimental setup and measurement techniques:

1. Timing Accuracy: Since manual timing was used to measure the descent time of each
cylinder, there was a risk of human error. Even slight timing inaccuracies can
significantly impact calculations of angular speed and acceleration.

2. Environmental Factors: External factors such as dust or minor surface contaminants

may have interfered with the coefficient of static friction, potentially causing the
cylinders to experience minor slippage even when rolling at lower angles.

3. Surface Imperfections: The incline surface was not perfectly smooth, which may have
introduced small amounts of rolling resistance and impacted the consistency of results.
Uneven surfaces could have affected the coefficient of friction as well

To improve the accuracy and reliability of future experiments, several adjustments can be
made:

1. Automated Timing Systems: Using automated timing systems or high-speed cameras

would greatly reduce human error and provide more precise measurements for angular
speed and acceleration.

2. Surface Preparation: Ensuring that the incline surface is clean, smooth, and free from
contaminants would improve the consistency of frictional interactions. Applying a
controlled, uniform texture to the surface could help achieve more accurate frictional
data.

CONCLUSION
The experiment successfully demonstrated the influence of various parameters on rolling
motion, although some discrepancies were noted between theoretical and experimental
values. By addressing the limitations mentioned above, future experiments could yield more
accurate data and provide even stronger validation of the theoretical principles governing rolling
motion.

13
REFERENCES

1. Hibbeler, R. C. (2016). Engineering mechanics: Dynamics (14th ed.). Pearson.

2. Meriam, J. L., & Kraige, L. G. (2015). Engineering mechanics: Dynamics (8th ed.).
Wiley.
3. Resnick, R., Halliday, D., & Krane, K. S. (2013). Physics (5th ed.). Wiley.
4. Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W. (2014). Physics for scientists and engineers (9th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
5. Young, H. D., & Freedman, R. A. (2014). University physics with modern physics
(13th ed.). Pearson.

14