ℳ of a shoe

Anisa Madey

Physics Department
Academy for Math, Engineering, and Science
November 8, 2017

Abstract: With a team, we measure the static and kinetic friction of each of our shoes. The
experiment was conducted by putting each shoe on a ramp and getting the measurements with a
spring scale. It was found that the static and dynamic friction increase as the mass increases.
 Introduction:
This experiment was done in order to determine the amount of force required to start an object
moving: static friction, and the amount of force required to keep the object moving: kinetic
friction. The objects we used were our shoes. We measured the friction by sliding it down a table
and measuring the force with a spring scale by first using the sole of the shoe, then the top of the
shoe, and finally put a weight in a shoe and measured it all again. We were trying to find which
shoe had more friction. This was interesting to us because friction is a part of everyday life and it
would be helpful for us as students of physics to understand it.

Theory:
From background knowledge and personal experience with friction, my theory was, it will take
more force to start an object moving. There will be more friction when the sole is touching the
ramp rather than the top of the shoe. The heavier the shoe the more friction it will have.When
you increase the mass of the shoe, the friction will also increase and the force of friction
increases on rougher surfaces and decreases on smoother surfaces

Need:
1) One shoe from each member of the team
2) Ramp (aka table)
3) Spring scales (zeroed)
4) 1 kg weight

Experimental Details:
1) Weighed our shoes (using Newtons) and recorded it in our data table
2) Placed the sole of the shoe on the ramp. Measured the static force and recorded it in our
data table.
3) Measured the kinetic force of the shoe and recorded it in the data table.
 4) Placed the top of the shoe on the ramp (sole up), measure the static force and recorded it
in the data table.
5) Measured the kinetic force of the shoe in this position and recorded it in the data table.
6) Put a 1 kilogram weight in the shoe and repeated the above procedures.
Repeated the steps for each different shoe belonging to every team member.

Results:

Shoe with Sole Area on Ramp

Shoes Mass (N) Static Friction (N) Dynamic Friction (N) With 1 kg Weight

Jandals 2.3 0.7 0.4 5.4

Boots 2.5 1 0.8 2.2

Doc Martens 3.4 0.6 1.2 2.7

Sneakers 3.1 1.8 0.6 4.8

Vans 3.2 2.2 0.6 4

 Shoe Mass Static Friction Dynamic Friction With 1 kg Weight

Jandals 2.3 1 0.9 4

Boots 2.5 1.3 1.2 3.2

Doc Martens 3.4 1 2 8

Sneakers 3.1 0.6 2.4 4.6

Vans 3.2 2.4 2.8 6

 Discussion
We put the data we got from our measurements and entered it into a Google Spreadsheets. Then
we made the charts off of that data.

In the “Shoe with Sole Area on Ramp” graph, the data shows that the dynamic friction has a
relatively steady relationship with the mass of the shoe. The dynamic friction increases as the
mass increases and decreases as the mass decreases. The chart shows thats the mass and static
force seem to mirror each other. It can be seen with the Doc Martens that as the mass increases,
the static friction decreases since it is the biggest shoe and it has the least amount of static force.
In the case of the 1 kg, weight, there doesn’t seem to be any clear results or correlations so I
would recommend that all the measurements be made and recalculated again.

In the “Shoe with Top Area on Ramp” graph, the data shows that the dynamic friction is
increasing since the mass is increasing. The static friction decreases, and then increases with the
Vans. This chart shows that the line with the 1 kg. weight increases, peaking at the Doc Martens
then decreases back to a data point that fits the line of best fit more, before the chart starts
increasing again.

There were two points in the data tables and charts that don’t match up with the rest of the data.
The static friction of the sneakers and the Doc Martens with the 1 kg. weight. I believe this is due
to a mistake in measurement caused by human error. Since our original measurements were off,
this caused the outliers that could be seen in the graphs. The rest of the data, though, was close
enough to give a proper estimate of what the data should look like.

I regards to my original theories, I was correct in that it takes more force to start an object
moving, the heavier the shoe, the more friction, and that Leilani’s Doc Martens would have the
most friction. I was wrong in that the sole of the shoe would have more friction that the top of
the shoe because I was picturing the wrong position in my mind when I heard top of the shoe.

Conclusion:
For this experiment, using the data from the charts, accounting for mistakes in measurements and
going off of the line of best fit, it can be seen that both the static and dynamic force increase as
the mass increases. The dynamic friction increases more than the static friction. The reported
data points for the Doc Martens in the “Shoe with Sole Area on the Ramp” should all be assessed
and recalculated along with all other questionable data points. Suggestions for further study
include using more precise measurement tools in order to eliminate as much human error as
possible so that the measurements and results are more accurate.