Determination of the Coefficients of Friction using Horizontal

and Inclined Planes

G.L.G. Almazan*, T.G.G. Cabanizas, C.J. Rosal, R.K.C. Suratos
Department of Physics, College of Science, University of the Philippines - Baguio
Gov. Pack Road, Baguio City
*Corresponding author: louiegem_almazan@yahoo.com
Abstract
The experiment aimed to illustrate that the area of an object that comes into
contact with another surface does not affect the amount of friction force
acting upon it and that the coefficient of static friction ( ) is always greater
s

than the coefficient of kinetic friction ( ). A wood block with two sides
k

covered with rubber was used in three set ups two of which determine the
coefficient of . Method one of determining required placing the block on
s s

an aluminum track and raising the track until the angle that the block slips
(the critical angle) which was recorded. Method two involved attaching a
hanging mass to the block while it rested on the aluminum track. Weights
were added to the hanging mass until the block moves at which the mass of
the hanging mass was recorded. The same set-up as method one was used to
determine except the angle was set higher than the critical angle and the
k

block was timed as it covered a set distance. The results indicated that
rubber has higher coefficients of friction ( 0.37 and 0.70) than wood
s k

( 0.0.23-0.26 and 0.36).

s k

Keywords: kinetic friction, static friction, critical angle, coefficient of

kinetic friction, coefficient of static friction
1. Introduction
In reality, frictional force should be taken into account in most situations [1]. The resisting force to the relative
motion of surfaces in contact is called friction. Even the objects that are considered as smooth are still affected
by friction at the molecular level which hinders motion. There are two types of frictional force that can be
present on an object given in contact with a surface. The first type of friction is the kinetic friction where an
object slides across the surface and mathematically given by:
F = N
k k (Eq. 5.1)
In Equation 5.1, is the kinetic friction coefficient in which its value is solely dependent to the nature of
k

two surfaces in contact and N is the force perpendicular to the surface of contact [1].
Then, there is the static friction, the second type of friction, which is the force parallel to the surface
even though it is not sliding and given by:
F N
s s (Eq. 5.2)
In Equation 5.2, is the static friction coefficient and the static friction is expressed as less than or equal to
s

N because the force can vary from zero to a particular maximum magnitude. When the critical or maximum
s

force was overcame by the object and proceeding into state of motion, the frictional force decreases which > s

[1]. Also, the surface area of the objects in contact, thus friction is present is independent. In this experiment,
k

the frictional force between the small and large area of a wooden and rubber surface on an inclined plane were
compared. The rate at which the object slides to the surface is dependent upon how tilted the surface is [2].
Therefore, the greater the incline of the surface, the faster the object will slide down it. This is also possible due
to the unbalanced forces acting upon the object.
The objectives of this experiment are: (1) to measure and analyze the coefficient of friction between the
large and small areas of the wooden and rubber side of the block, (2) to verify that friction is independent of
area of contact, and (3) to verify that coefficient of kinetic friction is smaller than the coefficient of static
friction.
2. Methodology
Four surfaces were tested for their experimental s and k, the four surfaces were large wood surface, small
wood surface, large rubber surface, and small rubber surface. Two methods were used to determine the
experimental value of the coefficient of static friction, s. The critical angle (the angle just before the block
slips) were measured and used in equation 5.2 to obtain s. Equation 5.2 is as follows where is the critical
angle:
(Eq. 5.2)
The block was placed on the aluminum track and an angle indicator was attached to it, then the aluminum
track was raised until the block slightly moves to determine the critical angle. Four trials were made in

5_A_Sound of Music
determining the critical angle. The resulting critical angles were then averaged and then used in equation 5.2.
Four surfaces were tested and the calculated s for each surface was tabulated in table 5.1. The set-up for method
one is illustrated as follows:

Wolfs
Figure 5. 1. Set up for method one
Two masses bound by a cord that was run through a pulley with one mass hanging and the other mass (the
block) resting on the aluminum were used to determine the s in method two. Weights were added to the
hanging mass until the block moves slightly. The masses were then recorded and used in equation 5.3, which is
as follows:
(Eq. 5.3)
In equation 5.3, m1 is the hanging mass and m2 is the mass of the block. Four surfaces were tested each with
four trials using method two. The mass of the block was weighed and then four trials were made with m1, where
m1 must be able to move the block slightly at which point the mass of m1 is weighed and recorded. The data
gathered from method two are tabulated in table 5.2. Figure 5.1 illustrates the set-up used in method two.

Manual
31.1
Physics

Figure 5.2. The set-up used in method two

The procedure for method on for s was repeated to determine k with some modification. The aluminum
track was raised to an elevation higher than the critical angle and the time of travel of the block over a fixed
distance was recorded. The k was computed using equation 5.3:
(Eq. 5.4)
The elevation and effect of gravitational force were incorporated into equation 5.4 by and g, respectively,
and the distance covered over the square of the time of travel was used to determine the acceleration of the
block. Four trials were made for each trial and he results were tabulated in table 5.3.
3. Results and Discussion
The force of static friction Fs is a force between to surfaces that prevents those surfaces from sliding or
slipping across each other. The maximum force of static friction between any pair of dry unlubricated surfaces
follows two empirical laws: (1) it is approximately independent of the area of contact and (2) it is proportional
to the normal force. The first part of the experiment tried to verify that coefficients of friction are not affected by
the contact area of the surfaces.
Table 5.1 Critical angles for different surfaces and their coefficient of static frictions
Surfaces Critical Angle Coefficient of
static friction
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Average
Wood on steel (Large Area) 14 13 13 13 13.25 0.23546
Rubber on Steel (Large Area) 21 20 21 21 20.75 0.37886
Wood on Steel (Small Area) 15 15 15 14 14.75 0.26328
Rubber on Steel (Small Area) 20 21 21 20 20.5 0.37388

The table above shows the observed critical angles from which the object started to move recorded for
different surfaces. Using the equation s = tan, the coefficient of static friction was calculated.

5_A_Sound of Music
 Figure 5. 3. Comparison of s values between large and small surfaces from method one

Using t-test for equal variances, the p-values were computed to determine if there is a significant difference
between the coefficients of static friction for the surfaces. The calculated p-value for the wood on steel surfaces
was 0.0054, which means that there is a significant difference between the coefficients for large area and small
area. This significant difference may be accounted from the difference in the microscopic structure of the
surface of the wood. The surface in contact with the aluminum may be of a different section (transverse, radial,
or tangential) which may be of different roughnesss and thus may affect the friction of the surface. A rougher
surface means a higher s [3], which may account for the difference of the s of the two surfaces (large and small
area of wood). Moreover, the calculated p-value for the rubber on steel surfaces was 0.54, which means that
there is no significant difference between the coefficients for large area and small area. This proves that friction
does not depend on surface area (in the case of rubber on steel). Although a larger area of contact between two
surfaces would create a larger source of frictional forces, it also reduces the pressure between the two surfaces
for a given force holding them together. Since pressure equals force divided by the area of contact, it works out
that the increase in friction generating area is exactly offset by the reduction in pressure; the resulting frictional
forces, then, are dependent only on the frictional coefficient of the materials and the force holding them together
[4]
.
Table 5.2. Coefficients of Static Friction based on Method Two
Surfaces Average mass m (g) 1 Mass of m (g)2 Coefficient of static friction, s

Wood on steel (large area) 108.39 0.24

Rubber on steel (large area) 129.74 0.29

444.08
Wood on steel (small area) 107.09 0.24

Rubber on steel (small area) 157.24 0.35

Shown in Table 5.2 are the computed masses of m and corresponding s using equation 5.2.
1

Figure 5. 4. Comparison of s in large and small surfaces from method two

A t-test with assumed unequal variances revealed that the computed s for wood is statistically the same (p
value = 0.05908) while for rubber they are significantly different (0.000331).

Table 5.3 Coefficient

of kinetic friction based from the calculated acceleration of the
measured distance and time at given different surfaces and areas.
Surface Angle, () Average Acceleration (m/s2) k Estimated
Wood on Distance (m) 0.30
20 0.086 0.35 0.36
aluminum Time (s) 1.86
Rubber on Distance (m) 0.15
35 0.297 0.663 0.70
aluminum Time (s) 0.71

5_A_Sound of Music
 Shown in Table 5.3 are the average measured distance and time with the corresponding computed
acceleration as well as kinetic friction coefficient of two conditions: wood on aluminum and rubber on
aluminum. Both of the blocks are predetermined as large area.
Considering the inclined air track, all the forces along the track (x-axis) is given by:
F = F - F = ma
x G fr x (Eq. 5.5)
mg sin - N = ma k x

N = mg cos (Eq.5.6)
where F is dealt by gravity and F is the frictional force during the slip.
G fr

Thus, expressing the normal force in Eq 5.6, the kinetic friction coefficient can be computed which is given
below:
= - (a /gcos ) + tan
k x (Eq.5.4)
The direction of force of the block having the contact surface of rubber on aluminum can be explained
mathematically in Eq. 5.1 in which the frictional force given in an object is always opposite from the direction
of the force applied. Thus, it decreases in linear motion, per se, of the block. Furthermore, the counteracting
frictional force makes the motion of the block slower in essence. Theoretically, the coefficient of kinetic friction
is smaller than the coefficient of static friction which can be explained by the interlocking of irregularities on the
microscopic level in static friction while interconnecting on the latter. From Table 5.1 and 5.2, the static
frictional coefficient is comparably lesser than the determined kinetic frictional coefficient in Table 5.3 where
the possible causes of deviations are discussed separately. In Table 5.3, the theoretical static frictional coefficient
can be computed using the tangent of the critical angle which is the basis for the comparison of the kinetic
friction if it follows the general behavior of the static and kinetic coefficients in theory.
The committed errors can be accounted to (1) random errors and (2) propagation of errors especially from
the calculated acceleration. The said errors are considerably insignificant in the Method 1 where the static
friction coefficient was aimed to be determined at the critical angle. However, in Method 2, it was not avoided
to have two researchers in charge of determining the indication of movement thus having different parameters.
For the determination of kinetic friction coefficient, several possible errors factor in. First, the reaction time
causes either increase or decrease in the coefficient depending on the advance or delay in timing. Also, the small
and large areas selected may have differences in the degree of roughness depending on which cut it originated
like transverse, tangential, and so on. Moreover, these errors can be minimized with the following
recommendations. The surface of the block be uniform, thus, no other surface should be in contact even at the
bare minimum. Spring meter is also preferably used rather with the use of hanging mass in a pulley. With
regards to the acceleration needed, photogates can be used as an accurate measurement of time and the use of
force meter is also worth mentioning for easier calculations of the coefficients.
4. Conclusion
To summarize, there is no significant difference between the coefficients of friction on the two surfaces of
the rubber. This means that the coefficient of friction is not dependent on the area of contact. However, for the
two surfaces of wood, there is a significant difference between the coefficients of friction. This may be
accounted from microscopic differences on the surfaces of the wood.
In the second method, there is no significant difference between the coefficients of friction on the surfaces of
the wood, while a significant difference was found for the coefficients of friction on the surfaces of the rubber.
Theoretically, the coefficient of kinetic friction is smaller than the coefficient of static friction. This
statement was tested in the determination of the coefficient of kinetic friction. The results obtained were that the
static frictional coefficient is comparably lesser than the determined kinetic frictional coefficient. The possible
cause of deviations came from calculating the acceleration where the timing was either delayed or advanced
depending on the reaction time of the researcher. Additionally, the small and large areas selected may have
differences in the degree of roughness.
In conclusion, the first objective was met and it was verified that friction truly does not depend on the area of
contact. However, in this experiment, the objective of proving that coefficient of kinetic friction is smaller than
the coefficient of static friction wasnt met due to propagation of errors.

References
1. Giancoli, D. (2014). Physics Principles and Applications. United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Physics Classroom (2017). Types of Forces. Retrieved on October 24, 2017from http://www.physicscl/
assroom.com/Class/newtlaws/U2L2b.cfm#frict
Hebert, C. (1999). Why does friction increase with roughness to a point and then start to decrease with
increasing roughness?. Retrieved October 24, 2017 from https://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/jan/
et.html
Walorski, P. Why doesnt friction depend on surface area? Retrieved Oct. 22, 2017 from http://www.phy/
slink.com/education/askexperts/ae140.cfm

5_A_Sound of Music
2. Galarion, W. Jr., Casuga, C., and Difonturum, R. (2016). Physics 31.1 Manual: A Compilation of
Laboratory Protocols and Worksheets of General Physics Laboratory 1 Experiments. np:np.
3. Wolfs, F. (n.d.). Force and Motion II. Retrieved on October 25, 2017 from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/
phy1/ 21/LectureNotes/Chapter06/Chapter6.html

5_A_Sound of Music