The Effect of Durometer and Angle on the Coefficient of Friction

Kate Barber, Ethan Fournier

Physics

McMillan/Cybulski

29 May 2018

Table of Contents
 Barber - Fournier 1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………....……… 2

Review of Literature …………………………………………...………………….……. 3

Problem Statement………………………………………………………………...……. 7

Experimental Design………………………………………………………………...….. 8

Data and Observations……………………………………………………..….……….. 10

Data Analysis and Interpretation……………………………………………..……..….. 13

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..…………...20

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...23

Appendix A: Setup of Box………………………………...……………………...……..24

Appendix B: Coefficient of Friction Calculations .…………………….……..................27

Works Cited………………………………………………………………..………….....29

Introduction
 Barber - Fournier 2

While skating, a quick and efficient way to stop is needed. There is a way to do

so, it is called a powerslide. Now, what if there was a certain angle and skate wheel that

should be used while doing this maneuver to get the best result?

With this experiment there were many ways to gather data, all of these ways

revolved around the type of stop it would require. There is a hockey stop, the break on

the back of the skate, ramming into a wall, the powerslide and more. But with the

powerslide, one of the skaters feet is dragging at an angle to the horizontal to use friction

to slow down and come to a graceful stop, making it the best candidate. Different skate

wheels have different durometers depending on the style of skating the skater wants to

perform, such as hockey, or recreational. The hockey wheels have a lower durometer than

most recreational skates. The angle of the powerslide depends on who is performing it

and their preference.

The coefficient of friction was necessary to come to a conclusion. The best way to

record the necessary data was to use an accelerometer. A formula was created to get the

force, and to finally get the coefficient of friction, the force was divided by net force. The

coefficient of friction can help skaters and developers choose which durometer of a

material, in this case skates, to use. If a developer were to need a high coefficient of

friction for their invention to work, they could use this research to see how durometer

affected the coefficient of friction.

Review of Literature
 Barber - Fournier 3

This experiment was set up to determine how the durometer of the wheel and the

angle that it is set at will affect its stopping distance. This procedure simulates a

powerslide, which advanced skaters commonly use. The powerslide is used best if it can

stop quick, because it will allow the skater to return to their task. A powerslide is

practically a one-footed hockey stop.

Figure 1. Powerslide Example (“How to Powerslide on Inline Skates”)

To conduct a power slide the skater must have one leg slide forward, while the

other will bears most of their weight. The non-sliding foot will end up facing the opposite

direction of the skater and the sliding foot will stop the skater without having them

change direction. Use arrows and point to what you’re talking about in the picture

The inline skate company provided a guide to determine the best wheel durometer

for the skate based on the style. For this experiment, the style assumed was hockey. For

this type of style, the best durometer for the wheel is between 72A-74A. The skates used

in this experiment go slightly above these values, but the style where powerslides would

be used are related closest to the hockey skates. While tri-skates have been proven by the
 Barber - Fournier 4

company to work more efficiently for power stopping, inline skates work just as well

(“Buying Guide for Inline Skates”).

Figure 2. Inline Skate (“Seba Skates”)

An inline skate consists of four wheels going straight in a row. They typically

have three to five wheels in a row.

Tribology is the study of friction, lubrication, and wear. Roughness plays an

important role in tribology (Stachowiak). There is physical and chemical roughness in all

objects. The physical roughness dictates contact area, contact stresses, and lubricant

paths, while chemical roughness dictates chemical compatibility, shear strength, and

lubricant properties. Tribology also dictates the bearings design, which was made with

the intent to balance friction and wear.

Durometer measures the hardness of an object and has two different scales,

ASTM D2240 type A and ASTM D2240 type D. Type A is for softer materials, while

type D is for harder materials (“Rubber Hardness”). Skate wheels are made of

polyurethane, which makes durable elastomeric wheels and tires. Elastomer is a polymer

with viscoelasticity, which is the biggest factor in measuring durometer. So, the more

elastomer in the wheel, the higher the durometer (“Rubber Hardness”).

𝐹/𝐹𝐹 = 𝐹
 Barber - Fournier 5

Figure 3. Coefficient of Friction Equation

Kinetic friction slows the skates down and assists in stopping it. The coefficients

of friction are ratios between the force and the normal force (Nave). Kinetic friction

measures friction as an object is moving. This assists in stopping an object that is already

in motion, similar to how it would stop the skater in a powerslide. The durometer of

wheels affect the force of friction because the softer the wheels, the stronger the friction.

With an increase in the force of friction, there is a decrease in stopping distance.

Depending on the surface that the object is trying to stop on, there may be

lessened friction due to a lubricant. Skate floors are covered with traction fluid and

vinegar, enhancing friction. With this enhancement of friction, the skater will be able to

stop in shorter distance. Other surfaces reduce friction and create a longer stopping

distance for the skater. The durometer of the wheels can balance this out by being

extremely soft on a lubricated surface, but it is ideal to have a softer surface for proper

results. If both the durometer of the wheel and the surface are low, the coefficient of

friction will be highest.

The angle at which the skate is placed determines the normal force and frictional

force. As the angle between the floor surface and the wheel increases, the frictional force

decreases. The best angle to have is at zero degrees. Since the skate can not be at an angle

of zero degrees, the skate must be set at a human level. Changing the angle of the skate

changes the amount of surface area there is between the skate and the ground. However,

the surface area between two objects has no effect because the force will change with the

surface area and end up having them be equal.

 Barber - Fournier 6

A paper done by Ian Barber and Jonathon Leckrone states that the lowest

durometer of 50A (with tread) had the highest coefficient of friction that was tested.

Barber and Leckrone ran their experiment by using a stand with a motor that they

lowered onto robotics field carpet to stop it while using a LabQuest to record force. The

experiment was set up to test different durometer robot wheels, and the presence of tread

on the field carpet. This then found the combination with the highest coefficient of static

friction, designed to keep the robot from sliding while being pushed at FRC competitions.

Problem Statement and Hypothesis

Problem Statement:

To determine what durometer and angle produces the highest coefficient of

friction, in a powerslide, on rollerblades.

 Barber - Fournier 7

Hypothesis:

If the 76A durometer wheels and the 35o angle are used, then the highest

coefficient of friction, in a power slide, will be produced.

Data Measured:

The independent variables for this experiment are durometer of wheels (76A,

82A, 84A) and the angle of the skate (35o, 55o, 75o). The dependent variable is

acceleration (meters/seconds2) of the skate and the coefficient of friction. A two-factor

Design Of Experiments (DOE) is conducted to find the best combination of wheels and

angles. A total of 4 DOE’s were conducted with 7 trials in each DOE.

Experimental Design
Materials:
(1) 76A durometer wheeled skate (2) Mass Blocks of 500 grams
(1) 82A durometer wheeled skate (1) Mass Block of 200 grams
(1) 84A durometer wheeled skate (1) Box with 35o angle
(1) Bucket (1) Box with 55o angle
(1) Carabiner (1) Box with 75o angle
 Barber - Fournier 8

(1) LabQuest (.0001 accuracy) (1) Accelerometer

(1) Cardboard Insert

Procedure:

1. Clamp the accelerometer to the table.

2. Plug accelerometer into the labquest.

3. Plug labquest into the computer.

4. Use logger pro to collect data.

5. Randomize the trials with the trials in the order: standard, ++, +-, standard, -+, --,
standard, with standard still being first middle and last.

6. Place corresponding skate in the corresponding box, from randomization method,

with the cardboard insert.

7. Set the string through the accelerometer.

8. Apply weight to the string attached to the box and hold box from moving due to
the weight.

9. Start collecting data on logger pro.

10. Let the box go.

11. Take the slope of the velocity vs time graph on logger pro.

12. Repeat steps 6-11 without the cardboard insert.

13. Repeat steps 5-12 twenty-eight times.

Diagram:
 Barber - Fournier 9

Figure 4. Setup

Figure 3, above, shows the experiment completely set up. The box has a string

wrapped around it and extends forwards to connect to a weighted bucket (not shown).

The string is attached to the accelerometer. It then records the acceleration of the skate.

The acceleration of the skate is measured in meters/second2. This was used to find the

forces which are used to find the coefficient of kinetic friction. The trial with the highest

coefficient of friction is the one that will stop the quickest.

Data and Observations

 Barber - Fournier 10

The data for this experiment was recorded using an accelerometer. The

accelerometer was attached to the box containing the skate with a string. That string was

later pulled with the weight added by a bucket.

Table 1
Data From All Four DOE’s More informative title please
Trial DOE 1 (m/s2) DOE 2 (m/s2) DOE 3 (m/s2) DOE 4 (m/s2)

Standard -6.64 -6.853 -7.8427 -7.369

+,+ -4.954 -5.4316 -4.353 -4.833

+,- -2.095 -2.545 -2.571 -1.692

Standard -6.935 -6.886 -7.722 -8.062

-,+ -5.607 -5.177 -4.587 -4.016

-,- -5.197 -6.115 -5.615 -4.799

Standard -6.494 -7.525 -7.199 -7.883

Table 1, above, shows all the accelerations. They are calculated by taking the trial

without the cardboard insert minus the one with the cardboard insert. As seen in the table,

the standard trials always have the greatest negative acceleration, leading to the

conclusion that the standard will have the highest coefficient of friction, leading to the

shortest stopping distance.

Table 2
Observations
 Barber - Fournier 11

Trial Observations

Standard Ran very smooth each time.

+,+ Had issues with each trial and had to rerun many times. The box
would ride up on skate.

+,- Was the worst working box, just as expected.

-,+ Ran well, no issues.

-,- Ran well, faster than expected.

Table 2, above, includes the general observations from the experiment. As seen,

the worst trial every time was the +,+ because it kept riding up on the skate creating

issues with the angle and causing the data to be invalid. The standard was the best trial to

run every time, there was never an issue with this trial.

Figure 5. Skate Being Angled

For this experiment to occur, the skate had to be placed in the box at the angle

corresponding to the randomized trial. The boxes were then hooked up through the

accelerometer.
 Barber - Fournier 12

Figure 6. Preparing to Collect Data

The box had to be held to the edge of the table while the weight was being added.

After the weight was added, the collect button could be pressed and the other person

could allow the box to go.

Figure 7. Finalizing the Trial

After the box had been let go, the data had to be collected. The data collected was

the acceleration of both the box and the skate inside the box. From there, the acceleration

of the box had to be removed from the acceleration of the box and skate to receive the

acceleration of just the skate.

 Barber - Fournier 13

Data Analysis

A two-factor Design of Experiment (DOE) was used to analyze the data that was

collected. A two-factor DOE tests how two variables and their interaction effect a

response variable. The experiment tested how durometer and angle affected the

coefficient of friction.

The data was collected by putting the skate with the corresponding wheels in the

corresponding angle box. Each trial was completed four times. Four DOE’s were

conducted to ensure the data was more accurate. This helps because it adds more trials to

the experiment. The standard was run twelve times during the beginning, middle, and

end. They are run in this way to ensure that the other trials are staying consistent

throughout the experiment, reducing outside variables. Throughout the experiment, the

acceleration of the box and skate were collected. This was then used to find the

coefficient of friction. The trials, excluding the standard, were randomized to prevent bias

towards a certain combination.

Table 3
Factors and Values

Durometer (A) Angle (°)

- Standard + - Standard +

76 82 84 35 55 75

The table above shows the low, high, and standard values for the factors

(durometer and angle) used in this experiment. For durometer, the low was held at 76A,

the high was held at 84A, and the standard was 82A. The low angle was 35o, the high was
 Barber - Fournier 14

75o, and the standard was at 55o. The durometers were chosen because they were the

wheels that were easily accessible. The angles were chosen after researching what

common angles were used for powersliding on rollerblades.

This experiment had to average out the DOE’s conducted so that a DOE analysis

could be conducted.

Table 4
Averages

Trial With Insert (m/s2) Without Insert (m/s2) Acceleration (m/s2)

Standard 9.10975 1.93 -7.18

+,+ 6.1825 1.2896 -4.8929

+,- 7.03775 4.812 -2.22575

Standard 8.8705 1.46925 -7.40125

-,+ 7.24875 2.402 -4.84675

-,- 8.221 2.7895 -5.4315

Standard 8.77225 1.497 -7.27525

Table 4, above, shows the averages of the four trials done in each category. The

first column is what trial the averages are from. Trials were done at random, but were

written in chronological order for the table. Observing the table, the standards had the

greatest negative acceleration of all the trials run. The +,- trial yields the lowest negative
 Barber - Fournier 15

acceleration of the trials. From those observations, it appears that the standard will lead to

the greatest coefficient of friction, leading to the shortest stopping distance.

Table 5
Effect of Durometer

Amt

-4.8929

-2.22575

= -3.559325 Figure 8. Effect of Durometer

The effect value for durometer is 1.5798. This value was found by subtracting the

average when held high by when the average was held low [(-3.559325)-(-5.139125)].

This effect value shows how much of an effect the change in durometer had. The graph in

Figure 8 shows the slope of the effect of durometer. The -1 on the x-axis is representative

of the value being held low, while the 1 is it being held high. Looking at the graph and at

the numbers, it becomes apparent that the durometer may have had an effect on the

coefficient of friction.

Table 5
Effect of Angle
 Barber - Fournier 16

4.8929

84675

69825
Figure 9. Effect of Angle

The effect value for angle is -1.0412. This also was found by subtracting the

average when held high, form when it was held low [(-4.869825)-(-3.828625)]. The

effect value of angle shows how much of an effect the change in angle had on the

outcome of the experiment. If the effect is within the fences (found in Figure 4) of -

0.4502 and 0.4502, it is not deemed statistically significant.

The graph in Figure 9 shows the slope if the effect of angle. The -1 on the x-axis

represents when angle is held low, while 1 is when it is held high. Looking at the graph

and the numbers, it becomes apparent that the angle may have had an effect on the

coefficient of friction.

Table 3
 Barber - Fournier 17

Interaction Effect

Amt

4.8929

84675 Figure 10. Interaction Effect

The table above shows the interaction of the durometer and the angle of the

skates. The interaction effect value is -1.62595. This value was found by subtracting the

slope of the line labeled solid by the slope of the lines labeled dotted. The solid line

represents the effect of high durometer with high and low angles. The dotted line

represents low durometer with high and low angles. Since the lines intersect and the

effect value is far from zero, there is a chance the interaction is statistically significant.

Figure 11. Dot Plot of Standards

The data appears to have a straight trend meaning that the experiment was carried

out well and that there were likely no outside lurking variables (outside effects that grow
 Barber - Fournier 18

or lessen as trials proceed). This is known because the variance is very low from all the

standard trials.

The range of standards was determined to be -0.2251. This is found by subtracting

the highest standard value (-7.18) by the lowest value (-7.40125) giving the range of

standards (-0.2251). From there, the fences for the parsimonious equation were

determined to be -0.4502 and 0.4502, found by doubling the range of standards. All of

the effects were outside of the fences, therefore, they are thought to be statistically

significant, meaning that they did not happen by chance alone.

Figure 12. Dot Plot of Effects

Figure 12, above, shows the dot plot of effects. As seen, all the effects are outside

of the fences located at -0.4502 and 0.4502 giving them all a chance of being statistically

significant. The letters represent which effect they are. A represents angle, D represents

durometer, and DA represents their interaction. This data shows that all variables

included may have had an effect on the results of the data. Both angle and durometer

affected the data, but the effect values show that both the interaction and durometer by

itself influenced the data the most.

 Barber - Fournier 19

𝐹 = −4.349225 + (1.5798/2)𝐹 + (−1.0412/2)𝐹 + (−1.62595)𝐹𝐹 + "𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹"

Figure 6. Parsimonious Equation

For this DOE all of the values were outside the fences, therefore both the

prediction and parsimonious equations are the same. The grand average is -4.349225 and

was found by adding up each average and dividing by the number of categories. From the

data earlier, see Figure 11, all of the effects were deemed significant and included in the

parsimonious equation.

In summary, 4, 2-factor, DOE statistical tests were ran and then averaged. The

results of the DOEs were recorded in acceleration, which was then had to calculate force.

The value calculated for force was used to determine the coefficient of friction. This

coefficient relates to the stopping distance of the power slide. The highest coefficient is

equal to the shortest stopping distance. The hypothesis was rejected because the -,- trial

was expected to yield the shortest stopping distance, however, the standard actually

yielded the shortest stopping distance.

Conclusion

This experiment was conducted to determine the coefficient of friction during a

powerslide on rollerblades. This was done through making boxes, which hold the skate at

a 35o, 55o, or 75o angle, with a string attached that runs through an accelerometer. The

accelerometer measures the acceleration using a photogate and open and closed ports on
 Barber - Fournier 20

the pulley system. Data was collected over a three day span, running one Design of

Experiment (DOE) the first day, two the second day, and one the final day. The

acceleration was used to find the force and then the coefficient of friction. The hypothesis

stated that if the 76A durometer wheels and the 35o angle are used then they will produce

the highest coefficient of friction in a power slide. This hypothesis was rejected because

the 82A durometer wheels and the 55o angle produced the highest coefficient of friction.

The 76A durometer and the 35o angle trial yielded a coefficient of friction of 1.7707while

the 82A durometer and the 55o angle trial had a coefficient of 2.1059 on average.

The results in this experiment contradict prior research done on this general topic.

The experiment mentioned has concluded that 50A, with tread, was the best durometer to

receive a high coefficient of friction (Barber, Leckrone); however, the data from this

experiment showed that 82A was the best, compared to the 76A and 84A wheels. The

skates in this experiment did not have tread on them, and they do not have 50A

durometer. Thus, the closest durometer in this experiment used was 76A.

The Design of Experiment analysis showed that the effects of the durometer,

angle, and interaction all had an significant effect on the results. The interaction had the

highest effect value, therefore, it had the highest effect on the outcome, the coefficient of

friction. Durometer had the second highest effect value, so durometer has a higher

contribution to the interaction than angle does. Research has proven that the softest

durometer should have a higher effect on the coefficient of friction. However, the results

disagreed with this point, the 76A wheels, the softest durometer wheels, did not have the

greatest effect on the experiment. Due to the surface that the skates were placed on, the
 Barber - Fournier 21

76A may have been too soft to produce accurate results. This shows that the best

durometer will change based on the surface that the skater is on.

Some things could have been done to ensure better results. The wheels used in

this experiment were not brand new and are worn out from use. New wheels would

provide a more accurate results, because the skates would not have any incidents of wear.

Some of the 76A durometer wheels had cracks in them. This affected the efficiency of the

durometer towards the experiment. The 82A durometer wheels have been used for four

years, while the 76A and the 84A have not been used as long, they have been used in a

more aggressive way, also affecting the durometers efficiency. The way of keeping the

skate at an angle could have been more efficient; however, the materials and time

available did not permit this. Different durometers and angles should be tested to expand

the results of this experiment. By adding a wider variety of durometers and angles, the

data would be more accurate towards what truly is the best combination. During the

experiment, the table should have been wiped down at the beginning of each day of trial

collection to ensure that no residue that could affect the surface friction was present. The

skates had a little wiggle room inside of the angled boxes, so the angle and position of the

skate may have varied slightly from trial to trial.

If this trial were to be worked upon, the data would allow the common consumer

to know more information about their skates. This can help skaters choose which

durometer wheel they want, because they will know how quickly it will stop. Many

skaters are unable to handle sudden stops, meaning this data will encourage them to get

harder durometer wheels.

 Barber - Fournier 22

Acknowledgements

To our math teacher Mrs. Tallman, thank you for checking over our DOE to make

sure all of the math is correct, and for giving words of encouragement to keep us

motivated.

To our physics teacher Mr. McMillan for helping us figure out how to collect our

data and the equation necessary to finding force and coefficient of friction.
 Barber - Fournier 23

To our IDS teacher Mrs. Cybulski, thank you for checking over every part of the

paper to ensure everything was done right and for telling us how to improve upon it.

To Kate’s dad, thank you for helping us figure out how to run the experiment in

the most efficient, accurate, and cheap way possible. And to Kate’s mom, thank you for

the words of encouragement.

To our friend and skater/employee at Skate World of Troy Jeremy Fleury-

Vettarino, thank you for helping us figure out what variables would be the best and most

reasonable to test. Thank you for allowing us to use your skates for research purposes.

Thank you for supporting us through the long and hard nights.

Appendix A: Setup of Box

Materials:
(6) Cardboard Box Box Cutter
(1) Protractor Elmer's Glue
String Tape

Procedure:

1. Take a cardboard paper box and remove the side flaps opening it flat.

2. Cut the bottom piece out of the flattened box.

 Barber - Fournier 24

3. Put protractor at the corner of the bottom piece and measure the respective angle
(35, 55, 75).

4. Trace out the angle and at the top level it out and then draw a perpendicular line
back to the bottom creating a quadrilateral shape with the angle in the bottom
right corner.

5. Cut the quadrilateral out.

6. Repeat steps 4-5.

7. Take one of the side flaps and glue the two angles angle side onto the back of the
flap so it would sit flat against a table leaning at the respective angle. (see Figure
1.)

8. Repeat steps 2-6 for all three angles.

9. Cut a hole in the bottom edge of a whole box for the wheels to touch the surface
through. (see Figure 2.)

10. Insert the corresponding angle piece into the corresponding whole box with the
hole.

11. Wrap a length of string around the box and tie it so it is slightly loose and can be
pulled into a “V” in the front

12. Tie another string to the middle of the “V” and make a loop at the end to attach
the weight to.

13. Repeat steps 11-12 for all three boxes.

Diagram:
 Barber - Fournier 25

Figure 1. Angled Inserts

Figure 1, above, show the three angle inserts. The side with the angle is glued to

the inside of the flap.

Figure 2. Hole in Bottom

Figure 2, above, shows where the hole in the bottom of the box was cut. It is one

inch in from the corners and 1.5 inches wide.

 Barber - Fournier 26

Figure 3. String

Figure 3, above, shows the string tied around the box. It has been laid over the top

of the box in the image, though it normally lies in the front. Also shown is the angle

insert inserted in the box.

Appendix B: Coefficient of Friction Calculations

 Barber - Fournier 27

𝐹𝐹 − (𝐹 + 𝐹) ∗ 𝐹 = 𝐹

Figure 8. Force Equation

The equation above helped determine the force of the skate. This equation had to

account for the hanging mass, the mass of the skate, the mass of the box, and any other

underlying variables.

𝐹/𝐹𝐹 = 𝐹

Figure 9. Coefficient of Friction Equation

The equation above gave the coefficient of friction for each trial, which was then

used to determine if the skate had the quickest stopping distance. The trial with the

highest coefficient of friction was deemed the trial with the best stopping distance.

Table 5.
Coefficient of Frictions
Trial Coefficient of Friction

Standard 2.083638984

+,+ 1.730580482

+,- 1.221506132

Standard 2.120190191

-,+ 1.623504173

-,- 1.770774505

Trial Coefficient of Friction

 Barber - Fournier 28

Standard 2.114023189

Table 5, above, shows the coefficient of frictions from the 7 trials. They were all

found using the method shown in Figure 8. As seen, the highest coefficient of frictions

can be found in the three standards. This leads to the conclusion that the standards yield

the shortest stopping distance.

Works Cited

“Buying Guide for Inline Skates.” Inline Skates, Inline Skate Company. 2018

https://www.inlineskates.com/Buying-Guide-for-Inline-Skate-Wheels/buying-gui
 Barber - Fournier 29

de-5-3-2013,default,pg.html. Accessed 9 April 2018.

“How to Powerslide on Inline Skates” Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=Cu1r5VjWEO4. Accessed 19 April 2018.

Keegan. “How to Powerslide on Rollerblades.” Schoolyard Puck, 2 April 2010,

http://www.schoolyardpuck.com/2010/04/how-to-powerslide-on-rollerblades.

html. Accessed 12 April 2018.

Moore, A. J. W., and W. J. McG. Tegart. “Relation between Friction and Hardness.”

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical

Sciences, vol. 212, no. 1111, 1952, pp. 452–458. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/98961. Accessed 19 April 2018.

Nave, R. “Friction.” Hyperphysics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict.html.

Accessed 19 April 2018.

“Rubber Hardness.” National Physical Laboratory, http://www.npl.co.uk/science

technology/mass-and-force/hardness/rubber-hardness. Accessed 19 April 2018.

“Seba Skates.” SebaSkates.com, http://www.sebaskates.com/. Accessed 19 April 2018.

Shaffer, Steven. “Tribology 101.” Bruker, https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_

upload/8-PDF-Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/TMT/Webinars/Tribology_101_Webinar-1_

Intro_and_Basics_29-Jan-2013.pdf. Accessed 19 April 2018.

Stachowiak, G.W. Friction (2017) 5: 233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-017-0173-7.

Accessed 19 April 2018.