See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333460287

On rolling friction

Article in Доклады Академии наук · May 2019

DOI: 10.31857/S0869-56524853295-299

CITATION READS

1 97

1 author:

Alexander Pavlovich Ivanov

Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS 581 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Pavlovich Ivanov on 11 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1028-3358, Doklady Physics, 2019, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 129–133. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2019.
Original Russian Text © A.P. Ivanov, 2019, published in Doklady Akademii Nauk, 2019, Vol. 485, No. 3.

MECHANICS

Rolling Friction
A. P. Ivanov
Presented by Academician V.V. Kozlov October 2, 2018

Received October 2, 2018

Abstract—The dependence of rolling friction on velocity for various contact conditions is discussed. The
principal difference between rolling and other types of relative motion (sliding and spinning) is that the points
of the body in contact with the support change over time. Due to deformations, there is a small contact area
and, entering into contact, the body points have a normal velocity proportional to the diameter of this area.
For describing the dependence of the friction coefficient on the angular velocity in the case of “pure” rolling,
a linear dependence is proposed that admits a logical explanation and experimental verification. Under the
combined motion, the rolling friction retains its properties, the sliding and spinning friction acquiring the
properties of viscous friction.

DOI: 10.1134/S1028335819030157

(1) INTRODUCTION where M is the rolling-friction moment, ω is the

The motion of a solid over a rough surface is
accompanied by a number of physical processes uni-
fied by the concept of “friction.” Due to their diver-
sity, the creation of a general model of friction is not
possible, and the search for individual regularities
occurs as practical problems are solved. The first sys-
tematic experiments on sliding, spinning, and rolling
friction were carried out by Coulomb in connection
with the problem of the launching of ships into water
in 1789. For describing the sliding friction, nowadays
one uses the simplified (without taking into account
the adhesive component) Coulomb’s law in the
form of
F  N v , (1)
v
where N is the normal reaction, F is the friction force,
v is the relative velocity, and  is the friction coeffi-
cient. According to this formula, at a constant coeffi-
cient, the friction force is independent of the modulus
of velocity.
Later, when investigating brake systems, a more
complex dependence of rolling friction on velocity
(the so-called Stribeck effect) analogous to Cou-
lomb’s law (1) was established:
M  0N ω ,

Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State
University), Dolgoprudnyi, Moscow oblast, 141700 Russia
e-mail: a-p-ivanov@inbox.ru
angular velocity, and 0 is the friction coefficient,
which has the dimension of length. Thus, the moment
M is independent of the angular-velocity modulus.
In connection with the development of wheel
transport, the dependence of the coefficient 0 on the
angular velocity was investigated [1]. Since direct
measurements are difficult due to the presence of sig-
nificant aerodynamic forces, this dependence was
determined on the basis of the following mathematical
model:
0  0  22, (3)
where 0, 2 , are constants.
High-precision measurements were also carried
out in a more complex system: the Euler disk in the
final phase of motion [2]; however, here the model of
the so-called contour friction dependent on the
motion of the contact point around the disk circum-
ference was used. To describe it, the hypotheses of
Coulomb and viscous friction were used, both of
which turned out to be suitable at certain stages of
motion. At the same time, the hypothesis of classical
viscous rolling friction made it possible to explain the
(2) backward motion of the disk [3].
The purpose of this study is to determine the nature
of the dependence of the rolling friction on the angular
velocity for simple solids (cylinder or ball) on the basis
of the model of contact deformations of the general
type.

129
130
(2) NATURE OF DISSIPATION FOR VARIOUS
MODELS OF FRICTION
The theorem of change in the kinetic energy of a
mechanical system is described by the formula
dT  dA  dA ,
e i
where T is the kinetic energy and A e and Ai are the
works of external and internal forces, respectively. For
investigating the laws of friction, it is useful to include
the moving body and the support into the system:
then, the friction forces become internal. In accor-
dance with the general scheme of composing the
Lagrange equations in generalized coordinates q  R n ,
we present the friction-force work dA f at a virtual dis-
placement q in the form
n
dA f
 Q q ,
j 1
j j
where Q j are the generalized forces and n is the num-
ber of generalized coordinates. Formulas (4) and (5)
can also be written using the powers
n
dT  W e  W i ,
dt
W
f
  Q q .
j 1
j j
It should be noted that, in the particular case of the
friction force proportional to velocity, the sum in for-
mula (6) can be interpreted as the differential of the
Rayleigh dissipative function quadratic in velocity. In
the general case, Q j  A , Q j  W , and, for cal-
f f
q j q j
culating the generalized forces, it is necessary to calcu-
late dA f directly.
2.1 Coulomb’s Law
We assume that the sliding friction is described by
formula (1); i.e., the coefficient of friction is indepen-
dent of the velocities of the points of the moving body.
The physical meaning of this property at n = 1 is as
follows: the irreversible deformations and the dissipa-
tion in formula (5) increase proportionally with the
path traversed by the body, from which Q = const. In
other words, if the path segment is fixed, the deforma-
tion, the energy losses, and the friction force are inde-
pendent of the velocity of motion. The dependence of
the sliding-friction coefficient on the relative velocity
observed in reality is explained by the change in the
physical properties of the contact, as a result of which
the resistance to the motion acquires hydrodynamic
properties.
It should be noted that the Coulomb friction can be
specified using the generalized Rayleigh function of
the form
IVANOV
k
R  N
j 1
j j vj ,
where v j is the velocity of the contact point,  j are the
corresponding friction coefficients, and Nj are the
(4) normal reactions. This description is applicable only
provided that all Nj are set (independent of velocities).
The idea of describing the dissipation in the general
case of relative motion based on law (1) was proposed
in [4, 5]. In this case, taking into account rolling was
based on the asymmetry of normal stresses or on slip-
ping in the (nonplanar) contact area. For “pure” roll-
ing, these models lead to formula (2).
Since it is formula (1) that is at the basis of these
models, they inherit the property of independence of
the friction coefficient on the velocity or angular
velocity. A hard wheel rolling along sand can serve as a
physical interpretation of this property. As shown
(5) in [6], the hypothesis 0  const is not confirmed in
practice: in a simple experiment, a round pencil rolls
down an inclined plane with a constant velocity, while
the aerodynamic drag is negligible. The only possible
stabilization mechanism is an increase in the coeffi-
cient with increasing angular velocity.
(6)
2.1 Impact Rolling Resistance
In the rolling of gears or faceted bodies, shock
interactions arise at the points of the body that come
into contact with a support at a nonzero velocity [6, 7].
Practical examples are a disc harrow−hoe or a
sprocket [7]. The motion consists of a supporting
(conservative) phase and the shocks with changing
“legs.” Dissipation arises at inelastic impacts. A sys-
tem with similar dynamics—a six-sided pencil—was
considered in [6].
It should be noted that, pointing to the impact
nature of dissipation and calculating the shock
momenta, the authors of [6] did not use the results
obtained for determining the dependence of rolling
friction on the angular velocity, proposing instead a
hypothesis for further investigation, according to
which
0  k  p, (7)
where k is an arbitrary coefficient and p  2 [7] or
p  [1,2] [6].
We analyze these assumptions on the basis of inves-
tigation of the dynamics of a sprocket. In the contact
phase, the body moves like an inverted pendulum. In
this case, the normal reaction and the support defor-
mation arise.
Let r be the distance from the support point to the
center of mass, where m is the mass of the body,  is
the radius of inertia, g is the acceleration of gravity,
and  is the angle between the supporting leg and the
vertical. The pendulum-motion equation
DOKLADY PHYSICS Vol. 64 No. 3 2019
 ROLLING FRICTION 131

2
  gr sin  (8) Further, we note that, according to the Kelvin the-
orem, the change in kinetic energy due to an inelastic
admits the first integral impact is
1 22  gr cos   C  1 22  gr,    , (9)
0
T  aI n  O(2 ). (16)
2 2
In addition, the deformations and the dissipation
where 0 is the angular velocity at the upper point. also accompany the supporting (shock-free) phase,
The normal and tangential components Rn and Rt of the losses consisting of a constant and the term O(2 )
the support reaction are found from the general theo- due to Eqs. (10). Therefore, formula (3) is valid for
rems of dynamics: rolling friction in the shock model.
Rn  P  r 2cos, Rt  mr (
 cos  2sin), (10) The consideration of (generalized) Rayleigh func-
tion (6) leads to a similar conclusion; in this case, W =
where the values  and  are determined from formu-
c1  c23 , since the fixed path (between two consec-
las (5) and (6). The simple analysis of expressions (10) utive impacts) is traversed in a time inversely propor-
shows that the value of Rn is lowest at the upper point tional to the velocity.
of the trajectory for  = 0. It imposes the following
restriction on the magnitude of the angular velocity, The following assertion is proved.
which guarantees the continuous motion: Statement 1. For the shock friction model, the depen-
dence of the rolling friction coefficient on the angular
r 20  P. (11) velocity in a certain interval is determined by formula
(3). The range of applicability of this formula is limited to
For reasons of symmetry, the total moment of the
support reaction with respect to the center of mass is the interval 0  (1, 2 ), where the value of 1 is deter-
zero during the motion at one leg. The nonzero mined by the equality 0 = 0 in formula (9), and the
moment arises at the impact change of legs. Consider- value of 2 is determined by formula (11). In other
ing that the impact is inelastic, we determine the com- words, the wheel should roll over the top point without
ponents I n and I t of the impact momentum and from loss of contact with the support.
the condition of the instantaneous stop of the new
point of contact. The Newton−Euler equations for 2.3 The Case of Continuous Contact
momentum motion take the form
The nature of rolling resistance of round solids
mvt  I t , mv n  I n, (ball or cylinder) substantially depends on the elastic
(12) properties of the body and the surface. In particular,
m2  r (I t cos   I n sin ),
when driving on a highway, this resistance is mainly
where  is the half-angle between the neighboring legs due to hysteresis during tire deformation [9]. For
and v n and vt are the normal and tangential velocity describing the dependence of the friction coefficient
components of the center of mass. The velocity un, ut  on the angular velocity, it is proposed to use an empir-
at the point of impact is determined from the Euler ical formula identical to Eq. (3). In addition, a stand-
formula: ing wave in the form of a tubercle in the front lower
part can occur in the tire at high velocities, which leads
un  v n  r sin , ut  vt  r cos . (13) to a significant increase in the rolling friction.
When a rink moves over sand, the dissipation is due
At the onset of impact, un  2r sin , ut  0 , and to the deformation of the surface, the total energy
at its end, un  ut  0 . Expressing the components of losses being proportional to the weight and the angle
the shock momentum from set (12), (13), we come to of rotation. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is
the expressions independent of the angular velocity.
The problem on rolling a viscoelastic cylinder over
1   cos 2 
I n  2mr  sin  , the base from the same material was considered in
1    2 sin  cos 
2 2 2
[10]. An exact expression was obtained for the rolling
(14)
 sin  cos  2 friction coefficient in terms of modified Bessel func-
It  I n,   r 2 . tions. Without writing a bulky formula, we note only
1   cos 
2
 that this coefficient is expressed at low rolling veloci-
As follows from formula (14), the moment propor- ties by the first-degree polynomial in the angular
tional to it is created not only by the normal, but also velocity. The case when the cylinder is rigid and the
by the tangential component of the impact momen- base is viscoelastic was investigated by a similar
tum: method in [11]; it is shown, in particular, that the fric-
tion coefficient tends to zero for both infinitely small
M  r (I t cos   I n sin ). (15) and infinitely large angular velocities.

DOKLADY PHYSICS Vol. 64 No. 3 2019

132 IVANOV
It should be noted that these conclusions are made
for highly deformable materials (for example, rubber).
When analyzing the rolling friction experiments of
steel balls in [12, 13], it was shown that the friction
coefficient is proportional to the angular velocity. For
the nonuniform ball (Chaplygin) in [14], it was shown
that taking into account only the sliding friction (dry
or viscous) gives no satisfactory agreement with the
experiment; the rolling friction has a more significant
effect.
Let us use the simplest Kelvin–Voigt model for
describing the local deformations of solids in the
form of
  2b  c ,
2
(17)
where  is the strain,  is the stress, and b and c are the
coefficients of viscosity and rigidity. The initial condi-
tions for the contact point are 0  0,  0   , where 
is the radius of the contact area. In correspondence
with the general rule for finding the generalized forces
(in this case, the rolling-friction torque), we estimate
the dissipation, when the angle of rotation of the cyl-
inder changes by the value of d   R . The trajectory
of each point of the cylinder surface is a cycloid, the
parameter of which is R. The loss of energy occurs only
due to the viscous component in formula (17), since
no change in the total volume of the elastic deforma-
tions occurs. Consequently, we again come to the con-
clusion that the friction coefficient is proportional to
the angular velocity.
Our reasoning can be combined with the following
statement.
Statement 2. The rolling friction of solids is described
by formula (2), where
0  0  1, (18)
and the coefficients 0 and 1 are subject to experimental
determination in every particular case. The presence of
the first term in this formula is induced, in particular, by
adhesion, the role of which at small rolling velocities may
be noticeable.
(3) FRICTION UNDER COMPLEX
MOTION OF A BALL
The dynamics of the Fleurier top (sextant) is
induced by the combination of its spinning and the
support-point sliding. This device was used from the
end of the nineteenth century, but the accompanying
theory was developed only in the mid-twentieth cen-
tury [8]. These types of relative motion unify the hor-
izontality of the relative velocity at the points of the
contact area, which makes it possible to use Cou-
lomb’s law locally on the basis of a certain hypothesis
about the distribution of normal stresses.
For taking into account the rolling, it was proposed
[4] to modify this theory, considering the distribution
as asymmetric. In the two-parameter model [5], the
deformations of the ball and the base were taken into
account and formula (1) was also used locally. The
approaches listed lead to the conclusion that the fric-
tion force and moment are invariable with a propor-
tional increase in the velocity and angular velocity.
The principal difference of rolling from spinning
and sliding is the presence of the normal component
of the velocity of body points, which come into con-
tact with the support. It was proposed in [4, 15] to take
into account the effect of rolling on the distribution of
the normal load n( A) in a circular contact spot (of
radius R ) using the formula
 R 
n( A)  n0( A) 1  k  r ( A)  , N  , r ( A)  OA, (19)
where O is the center of the circle, A is one of the
points of the contact spot, n0( A) is the symmetric dis-
tribution in the statics,  is the vector of the angular
velocity of rolling, and k is a certain dimensionless
coefficient. The latter was selected from the consider-
ations of the correspondence of the experiment to the
data, the values of k  (0.5,1) being obtained for var-
ious experimental data [15]. The properties of com-
bined friction are considered for k  const  0 [4]. In
this case, the laws of rolling friction were not dis-
cussed.
According to formula (19), the distribution of the
normal load at a constant value of the coefficient k is
independent of the angular-velocity magnitude,
which leads to a singularity at the point  = 0. A more
convenient and plausible model can be constructed on
the basis of formula (18) for the normal stresses: due to
the symmetry of the elastic component in this for-
mula, the asymmetry is caused by a viscous part,
which is proportional to the angular velocity of rolling.
Instead of formula (19), we obtain
 R 
n( A)  n0( A) 1  k  r ( A)  , N  , r ( A)  OA. (20)
It should be noted that formula (20) leads to admissi-
ble values of n( A) provided that k ||  1.
(4) CONCLUSIONS
The principal difference between rolling and other
types of relative motion—slip and spinning—is that the
points of the body in contact with the support change
over time. Due to the deformations, there is a small
contact area, and when the point of the body comes
into contact, these points have a normal velocity pro-
portional to the diameter of this area. For describing
the friction coefficient under “pure” rolling, we pro-
pose formula (18), which admits a logical explanation
and experimental verification.
In the case of a combined motion, the rolling fric-
tion retains its properties and the sliding and spinning
friction can be calculated on the basis of Coulomb’s
DOKLADY PHYSICS Vol. 64 No. 3 2019
 ROLLING FRICTION 133

law in the local form taking into account formula (20)
for the modified distribution of the normal load.
9.
REFERENCES 10.
1. J. Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles, 3d ed. (Wiley,
N.Y., 2001)
11.
2. R. I. Leine, Arch. Appl. Mech. 79 (11), 1063 (2009).
12.
3. A. V. Borisov, A. A. Kilin, and Yu. L. Karavaev, Usp.
Fiz. Nauk 187 (9), 1003 (2017). 13.
4. A. A. Kireenkov, Dokl. Phys. 53 (4), 233 (2008).
5. A. V. Karapetyan, Prikl. Mat. Mekh. 73 (4), 515 (2009). 14.
6. K. T. McDonald, RCD 13 (4), 332 (2008).
15.
7. A. M. Formal’skii, Displacement of Anthropomorphic
Mechanisms (Nauka, M., 1982) [in Russian].
8. P. Kontensu, Relationship between Sliding Friction and
Spinning Friction and its Taking into Account in Theory of
Top. Problems of Gyroscopy (Mir, M., 1967) [in Rus-
sian].
D. Ma, C. Liu, Z. Zhao, and H. Zhang, Proc. R. Soc.
A 470, 20140191 (2014).
I. G. Goriacheva, J. Appl. Math. and Mech. 37 (5), 925
(1973); I. G. Goryacheva, Prikl. Mat. Mekh. 37 (5),
877 (1973).
S. C. Hunter, J. Appl. Mech. 28 (4), 611 (1961).
B. N. J. Persson, The Europ. Phys. J. E 33 (4), 327
(2010).
A. V. Borisov, T. B. Ivanova, Y. L. Karavaev, and
I. S. Mamaev, Europ. J. Phys. 39 (6), 065001 (2018).
A. V. Borisov, A. A. Kilin, and I. S. Mamaev, Reg. and
Chaot. Dyn. 18 (1/2), 144 (2013).
J. Svendenius, Tire Models for Use in Braking Applica-
tion (Lund: Dept. Autom. Control, Lund Inst. Tech-
nol., 2003).
Translated by V. Bukhanov

SPELL OK

DOKLADY PHYSICS Vol. 64 No. 3 2019

View publication stats