INVESTIGATING THE FACTORS

THAT AFFECT THE COEFFICIENT OF

FRICTION
Module 1: Discrete Mathematics Module 3 : Particle
Mechanics
Brandon SookdeoUpper 6 ScienceApplied Mathematics
 Table of Contents

Statement of the Task 2

Method of Data Collection 3

Data Collected 7

Analysis/ Calculations 9

Evaluation/ Conclusions 22

Bibliography 23

1
 Statement of the Task
This investigation involves determining the variables affecting the coefficient of friction for two
surfaces in contact. The variables to be tested are:

 Mass of the object subject to the frictional force.

 Surface area of contact between the pair of surfaces.
 Roughness of the contact surface.

The experiment will be conducted in three phases, changing the controlled and manipulated
variable at each phase. Initially, the coefficient of friction for blocks of the same material, but
different masses, as they are about to slide down an inclined board will be determined.
Secondly, the investigation will be repeated for varying surface areas of contact between block
and board, for a constant mass. In the third stage, materials of varying textures will be attached
to the base of the block, while the other variables are kept constant.

The mathematical principle involved in the experiment is the equation F = µR where F is limiting
friction, µ is the coefficient of friction and R is the normal force (perpendicular to the plane or
slope). Basic geometry and trigonometry will also be employed.

In addition, it is desired that the task be completed in as little time as possible, and it would be
helpful to know which activity times can be altered without affecting the minimum completion
time. Consequently, an activity network will be constructed and used to obtain this
information, by determining the critical path and the respective float times.

The following definitions will be useful:

1. Float- a measure of the facility to alter timings (start or duration) of an activity without
affecting the overall completion time of the project (latest start time - earliest start
time).
2. Critical path- Those activities whose timing cannot be changed if the project is to be
completed in the minimum possible time.

2
 Method of Data Collection
Aim (1) : To determine the minimum completion time to conduct the experiment to find the
coefficient of friction between a wooden board and blocks of different properties.

Procedure:

1. Stop watches were used to time the following activities to the nearest hour.
2. Blocks, a wooden sheet 01kg weights and an electronic balance were obtained from a
hardware.
3. All other materials (metre rule, materials of varying roughness) were obtained.
4. Weigh blocks and produce blocks of varying desired masses.
5. It was ensured that all blocks had the same mass but different, measured surface area
contact with board.
6. Materials of different roughness were attached to the bottom of the blocks of same
surface area and mass.
7. The apparatus was set up.
8. The experiment was conducted with blocks of varying masses.
9. The experiment was conducted with blocks of varying surface area contact.
10. The experiment was conducted, varying the nature of the surface of block in contact
with the board.

3
Aim (2): To determine the variables that affect coefficient of friction by determining coefficient
of friction between a wooden board and blocks with different properties.

Block

Ruler
Board

Figure 1: 3D representation of arrangement of apparatus to test coefficient of friction.

4
 Height of inclination

Distance from base of slope to ruler

Figure 2: Block diagram of arrangement of apparatus to test coefficient of friction.

5
Procedure:

1. The block was weighed on an electronic balance to verify that its mass was 0.1kg.
2. The piece of board was placed flat on even flooring, with one edge against a wall.
3. 60 cm from one end of the board, a metre rule was taped to the wall vertically.
4. The block being tested was then placed on the board 40 cm from the end opposite to
the end against the ruler.
5. The board was then slowly inclined until the block was just about to move downwards.
This was determined by allowing the block to move downward at first, and, by trial and
error, coming to a point where it was deduced that if the board were inclined anymore
the lock would slip down. This arrangement is demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2 above.
6. At this point, the height of inclination (as shown in Figure 2), measured using the metre
rule, was recorded.
7. Three trials were performed for the block and an average value taken.
8. Steps two to seven were repeated, each time adding a 0.1kg weight to the block and
verifying its new mass on the electronic balance. This was done nine times i.e. increasing
in increments of 0.1kg up to a mass of 1kg.
9. For the second phase of the experiment, block of different surface area contact with the
board were obtained, from 2cm2 to 20cm2, in increments of 2cm2. Weights were added
to the blocks until each had a mass of 0.5kg verified using the electronic balance. Each
block was tested as described in steps two to seven.
10. For the third phase of the experiment different materials were glued to the bottom of
blocks of the same mass (0.5kg) and steps two to seven carried out. These materials
were foil, a smooth paper towel, a smooth cloth, computer printing paper, a rough cloth
and sandpaper.

6
 Data Collected
TABLE 1: DURATION AND PRECEDING ACTIVITIES FOR EACH ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY SYMBOL DURATION IMMEDIATE

(HOURS) PRECEDING
ACTIVTIES
Obtaining blocks and wood from hardware and A 6.0
0.1kg weights and electronic balance.
Obtaining other materials (metre rule, materials of B 1.0
varying roughness)
Weigh blocks and produce blocks of varying masses C 1.0 A
Weigh blocks and obtain blocks of the same mass D 1.0 A
but varying surface area contact with board
Attach materials of varying roughness to the bottom E 2.0 A, B
of blocks of identical mass and surface are contact
with board
Set up apparatus F 1.0 A, B
Conduct experiment with varying masses G 3.0 C, F
Conduct experiment with varying surface area H 2.0 D, F
contact with board
Conduct experiment, varying the nature of the I 3.0 E, F
surface in contact with board

TABLE 2: HEIGHTS OF INCLINATION OF THE BOARD (SLOPE) WHEN BLOCKS OF VARYING

MASSES WERE JUST ABOUT TO MOVE DOWNWAD AND DISTANCES FROM BASE OF SLOPE TO
RULER FOR RESPECTIVE MASSES (PHASE 1)

MASS OF DISTANCE FROM BASE HEIGHT OF INCLINATION AS BLOCK WAS JUST ABOUT TO
BLOCK, kg OF SLOPE TO RULER, MOVE DOWN THE SLOPE (TO THE NEAREST CENTIMETRE), cm
cm TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3 AVERAGE HEIGHT
0.1 60 39 34 32 35
0.2 60 38 37 34 36
0.3 60 37 34 35 35
0.4 60 36 35 33 35
0.5 60 35 34 38 36
0.6 60 32 38 34 35
0.7 60 39 34 37 37
0.8 60 36 39 39 38
0.9 60 39 33 31 34
1.9 60 34 34 31 33

7
TABLE 3: HEIGHTS OF INCLINATION OF THE BOARD (SLOPE) WHEN BLOCKS OF VARYING
SURFACE AREA OF CONTACT WERE JUST ABOUT TO MOVE DOWNWAD AND DISTANCES FROM
BASE OF SLOPE TO RULER FOR RESPECTIVE SURFACE AREAS (PHASE 2)

SURFACE AREA OF DISTANCE FROM HEIGHT OF INCLINATION AS BLOCK WAS JUST ABOUT
CONTACT BETWEEN BASE OF SLOPE TO TO MOVE DOWN THE SLOPE (TO THE NEAREST
BLOCK AND SLOPE, RULER, cm CENTIMETRE), cm
cm2 TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3 AVERAGE HEIGHT
2 60 32 35 35 34
4 60 39 39 33 37
6 60 37 34 37 36
8 60 35 36 34 35
10 60 39 38 39 39
12 60 39 39 39 39
14 60 34 39 35 36
16 60 39 38 34 37
18 60 38 36 36 37
20 60 38 30 39 36

TABLE 4: HEIGHTS OF INCLINATION OF THE BOARD (SLOPE) WHEN BLOCKS WITH MATERIALS OF
VARYING ROUGHNESS ATTACHED TO THEIR BASES WERE JUST ABOUT TO MOVE DOWNWAD
AND DISTANCES FROM BASE OF SLOPE TO RULER FOR RESPECTIVE ATACHED MATERIALS
(PHASE 2)

MATERIAL DISTANCE FROM HEIGHT OF INCLINATION AS BLOCK WAS JUST ABOUT TO

ATTACHED TO BASE OF SLOPE TO MOVE DOWN THE SLOPE (TO THE NEAREST
BASE OF BLOCK RULER, cm CENTIMETRE), cm
TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3 AVERAGE HEIGHT
Foil 60 15 15 15 15
Cardboard 60 25 19 20 21
Polyester Cloth 60 25 26 28 26
Newspaper 60 30 31 29 30
Cotten Cloth 60 36 40 36 37
Sandpaper 60 56 52 54 54

8
 Analysis/ Calculations
STAGE 1: CRITICAL PATH AND FACILITY TO ALTER TIMINGS DETERMINATION

Table 1 under Data Collection shows the duration and respective preceding activity/activities
undertaken in the course of the experiment that is, it shows the activities that must be
completed before a subsequent activity can begin. The data will be represented on activity
networks and respective float times and consequently the critical will be determined.

The first activity network is presented in the form activity on node (AoN). In this form, the
activities are represented by vertices or nodes, along with their corresponding duration, earliest
and latest start times. The following notation is employed:

Activity Symbol Duration of Activity

Earliest Start Time Latest Start Time

9
Figure 3: Activity on Node Network of Activities C 1.0
Conducted in Experiment.
6.0 7.0
G 3.0
A 6.0 7.0 8.0
0 0
D 1.0
6.0 8.0
H 2.0 FINISH

10
START 7.0 9.0 11.0 11.0
0 0
E 2.0
6.0 6.0
I 3.0
B 1.0
8.0 8.0
0 6.0 F 1.0
6.0 7.0
Figure 4: Activity on Arrow Network of
Activities Conducted in Experiment. C
1.0
6.0
G
A
6.0
3.0
D
0 1.0
6.0
H

11
6.0 2.0
START FINISH
1.0
1.0
E
0
1.0 3.0
2.0
B I
1.0
1.0 F
The earliest start time for each activity was found by going forward through the network. The
latest start times were found by going backwards through the network. This data is represented
in Figure 3. The corresponding float times for each activity are calculated using the formula
below:

Float = Latest start time – Earliest start time

TABLE 5: EARLIEST AND LATEST START TIMES AND FLOAT VALUES FOR EACH ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY EASRLIEST START TIME LATEST START TIME FLOAT

A 0 0 0.0
B 0 6.0 6.0
C 6.0 7.0 1.0
D 6.0 8.0 2.0
E 6.0 6.0 0.0
F 6.0 7.0 1.0
G 7.0 8.0 1.0
H 7.0 9.0 2.0
I 8.0 8.0 0.0

The activity network shows that the minimum completion time for the project is 11 hours. From
the data in Table 5, the critical path can be determined. The critical path was found to be A – E
– I. These timings cannot be changed without affecting the overall completion time of the
project.

12
STAGE 2: INVESTIGATION OF COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION.

The diagram below is a force diagram, showing the forces acting on the block, as well as the
relevant angles and slopes labelled.

R
F

a c
W

d
ϴ b

Figure 5: Force diagram of block from experiment.

In Figure 5 the forces are represented by capital letters.

 R - normal reaction force

 F - limiting friction
 W - weight of block (W=mg, where m is the mass of the block and g is the gravitational
force)

The block is modelled as a particle. ‘c’ and ‘d’ are the components of the weight, which acts
vertically downward. R acts perpendicular to the slope. ‘c’ is also perpendicular to the slope and
‘d’ is parallel to the slope. The following is a diagram defining the angles which will be made use
of in the determination of the coefficient of friction. The diagram is extracted from the relevant
parts of Figure 5.

13
 α
β
c

a
e
d

ϴ b

Figure 6: Diagram of the necessary geometry of the apparatus setup for determination of
coefficient of friction where e = W.

Sum of internal angles of a triangle = 180°

So, from triangle abe, ϴ + β + 90° = 180°

ϴ + β + 90°

β = 90° - ϴ (1)

Since a and c are at right angles to each other,

β + α = 90° (2)

Substituting (1) into (2)

90° - ϴ + α = 90°

α=ϴ (3)

14
For the values measured in the experiment, the block is in limiting equilibrium. Therefore, the forces in
one direction must be equal to the forces in the opposite direction. The directions considered are
perpendicular and parallel to the slope.

Therefore, from Figure 5, equating forces perpendicular to slope,

R=c

But, from Figure 6, cde is a right angle triangle.

Hence, c = e x cosα

Recall e = W = mg

And from (3) α=ϴ

Therefore, R = (9.8)(m)(cosϴ) (taking g to be 9.8 ms-2)

Equating forces parallel to the slope,

F=d

But, from Figure 6, cde is a right angle triangle.

Hence, d = e x sinα

Recall e = W = mg

And from (3) α=ϴ

Therefore, F = (9.8)(m)(sinϴ) (taking g to be 9.8 ms-2)

F ≤ µR, but for the state of limiting friction F = µR (where µ is the coefficient of friction)

But F = (9.8)(m)(sinϴ)

And R = (9.8)(m)(cosϴ)

So (9.8)(m)(sinϴ) = (µ) (9.8)(m)(cosϴ)

(9.8)(m)(sinϴ)
Therefore µ=
(9.8)(m)(cosϴ)

(9.8)(m) sin ϴ
µ= ×
(9.8)(m) cos ϴ

µ = tan ϴ

15
Thus, the only necessary data to determine, and hence compare coefficients of friction for the
different properties of the blocks, are the values of tanϴ. Since the heights of inclination and
distance from the base of the slope to the ruler are known, tanϴ can be found directly. The
distance from the base of the slope to the ruler would be the adjacent side to angle ϴ and the
height of inclination of the slope would be the opposite side to ϴ. tanϴ= opposite ÷ adjacent.
Hence µ for each phase of the experiment was calculated in this way.

TABLE 6: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOUND FOR PHASE 1 OF THE EXPERIMENT (VARYING MASSES)

MASS OF AVERAGE HEIGHT OF DITANCE FROM BASE OF TANϴ

BLOCK, kg INCLINATION WHEN BLOCK WAS SLOPE TO RULER (OPPOSITE÷ADJACENT), µ
JUST ABOUT TO MOVE (ADJACENT), cm
(OPPOSITE), cm
0.1 41 65 0.631
0.2 44 65 0.677
0.3 38 65 0.585
0.4 42 65 0.646
0.5 40 65 0.615
0.6 43 65 0.662
0.7 46 65 0.708
0.8 41 65 0.631
0.9 40 65 0.615
1.0 42 65 0.646

16
GRAPH 1: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ) AGAINST MASS OF BLOCK UNDER INVESTIGATION, kg

GRAPH 1: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION AGAINST MASS

OF BLOCK
0.64

0.62

0.6
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ)

0.58

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MASS OF BLOCK, kg

GRAPH 1: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION AGAINST MASS OF BLOCK

Linear (GRAPH 1: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION AGAINST MASS OF BLOCK)

17
TABLE 7: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOUND FOR PHASE 2 OF THE EXPERIMENT (VARYING
SURFACE AREAS OF CONTACT)

SURFACE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF DITANCE FROM BASE TANϴ

AREA OF INCLINATION WHEN BLOCK OF SLOPE TO RULER (OPPOSITE÷ADJACENT), µ
BLOCK, cm2 WAS JUST ABOUT TO MOVE (ADJACENT), cm
(OPPOSITE), cm
2 34 60 0.560
4 37 60 0.616
6 36 60 0.600
8 35 60 0.583
10 39 60 0.650
12 39 60 0.650
14 36 60 0.600
16 37 60 0.616
18 37 60 0.616
20 36 60 0.600

18
GRAPH 2: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ) AGAINST SURFACE AREA OF CONTACT, cm2

COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION AGAINST SURFACE AREA

OF CONTACT
0.66

0.65

0.64

0.63
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ)

0.62

0.61

0.6

0.59

0.58

0.57

0.56

0.55
0 5 10 15 20 25
SURFACE AREA OF CONTACT, cm2

19
TABLE 7: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION FOUND FOR PHASE 2 OF THE EXPERIMENT (VARYING
SURFACE AREAS OF CONTACT)

MATERIAL AVERAGE HEIGHT OF DITANCE FROM BASE TANϴ

ATTACHED TO INCLINATION WHEN BLOCK OF SLOPE TO RULER (OPPOSITE÷ADJACENT),
BASE OF BLOCK WAS JUST ABOUT TO MOVE (ADJACENT), cm µ
(OPPOSITE), cm
Foil 15 60 0.250
Cardboard 21 60 0.350
Polyester Cloth 26 60 0.430
Newspaper 30 60 0.500
Cotten Cloth 37 60 0.616
Sandpaper 54 60 0.900

20
GRAPH 3: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ) AGAINST MATERIALS ATTACHED TO BASE OF BLOCK

0.9

0.8

0.7
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION (µ)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Foil Cardboard Polyester Cloth Newspaper Cotton Cloth Sandpaper
MATERIALS ATTACHED TO BASE OF BLOCK

21
 Evaluation/ Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of this project. The minimum completion time and
critical path for the experiment were found. The critical path for the experiment was found to be:
obtaining blocks and the wooden board from a hardware as well as 0.1kg weights and an electronic
balance; weighing blocks and producing blocks of varying masses or setting up the apparatus;
conducting the experiment with varying masses. These activities cannot be delayed without affecting
the minimum completion time of the experiment, found to be 11 hours. However, all the tasks must be
completed for completion of the project. Therefore, activities, where possible, must be performed
simultaneously (provided human and material resources are available).

The float values indicate which activities can be delayed without affecting the minimum completion
time of the project. It was found that obtaining the metre rule and materials of varying roughness can
be delayed up to six hours from the start time. Either, weighing and obtaining blocks of varying surface
area, or conducting the experiment with varying surface area contact with the board can be delayed by
1.0 hour. Also, either attaching different materials to the bottom of the blocks or conducting the
experiment, varying the nature of the surface area in contact with the board, can be delayed by half an
hour. These delays will not affect the minimum completion time of the project.

In the determination of the factors that affect coefficient of friction, µ, it was found that tan ϴ = µ. ϴ
could have been measured directly but it was more convenient to use the values of the height of
inclination of board (opposite) and the distance from the base of the slope to the ruler (adjacent).
Graphs 1 and 2 are both lines with gradients almost equal to zero. This suggests that neither the mass of
the object subject to the frictional force, nor the surface area contact between the pair of surfaces
affects the coefficient of friction. Graph 3, however, suggests that attaching different materials to the
base of the block did affect the coefficient of friction. The trend is that with increasing roughness the
coefficient of friction increases.

There were several limitations in the course of this project. The reasons for the lines in graphs 1 and 2
not being completely horizontal are likely errors. One definite error was the uncertainty in knowing
exactly when the block was in limiting friction. The attempt to reduce the impact of this error was trial
and error before taking values as well as conducting three trials and finding average value. Another
limitation was that the roughness of the materials attached to the bottom of the block in phase 3 of the
investigation was not a measurable quantity and so the estimated gradation of roughness of the
materials was assumed to be accurate. In the creation of the activity network, the limitation lies in the
fact that the activities will not be performed in the exact same time each time they are performed.

For increased validity and reliability, the experiment can be performed again to verify the activity
network, critical path and completion time. Also, using the same masses, surface areas and materials,
the experiment can be performed, this time measuring ϴ using a protractor for comparison.

22
 Bibliography
Beadson, T., and Jefferson, B. (2000). Introducing Mechanics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
Univerity Press.

Sadler, A.J., and Thorning, D.W.S. (1996). Understanding Mechanics. Oxford, United Kindom:
Oxford University Press.

Stevens, J., and Bloomfield, I. (2002). Discrete and Decision. Cheltham, United Kingdom: Nelson
Thornes

23