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

net/publication/282907644

Rolling to a stop down an inclined plane

Article  in  European Journal of Physics · November 2015

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065047

CITATIONS READS

4 1,223

1 author:

Rod Cross
The University of Sydney
198 PUBLICATIONS   1,542 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rod Cross on 12 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rolling to a stop down an inclined plane

Rod Cross
Physics Department, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
E-mail: cross@physics.usyd.edu.au

1
 Rolling to a stop down an inclined plane
Abstract
Experimental and theoretical results are presented showing that a ball with a high coefficient
of rolling friction can roll to a stop when it rolls without slipping down an inclined plane.
The rate at which energy is dissipated is directly proportional to the rolling friction force
on the ball, despite the fact that the net work done by the friction force is zero. The energy
loss arises from internal friction within the ball due to compression and expansion of the
ball in the contact region.

1. Introduction

A sphere or cylinder that rolls down an inclined plane normally accelerates down the incline,
at a rate that depends on the slope of the incline and on the mass distribution of the rolling
object. However, it is also possible for an object to decelerate and come to a complete
stop when it rolls down an incline. The result depends on the coefficient of rolling friction
between the object and the inclined surface, and it also depends on the slope of the incline.
If the rolling object and the surface are both relatively hard then the coefficient of rolling
friction is likely to be less than 0.001, in which case the object will usually accelerate down
the incline.
A static friction force is needed in order for the object to rotate as it rolls down the
incline and in order for the angular velocity to increase as the object accelerates. The static
friction force acts only to convert translational energy into rotational energy, with the result
that the work done by the friction force is zero and the total energy is conserved to a close
approximation when the coefficient of rolling friction is very small [1]. However, the total
energy at the bottom of the incline will be slightly less than at the top since the coefficient of
rolling friction is not zero and hence energy is always dissipated when an object is rolling. A
distinction between the “static friction” force and the “rolling friction” force on an inclined
plane is described by Vozdecky et al [2] and is examined in greater detail in the present
paper.
If the rolling object or the surface is soft, then the coefficient of rolling friction will be
larger than that for hard surfaces, in which case a larger fraction of the initial energy will
be dissipated, depending on the angle of the inclined surface. If the angle is relatively small
then all of the initial energy could be dissipated, and the rolling object will then come to a

2
complete stop, as it does when it rolls on a horizontal surface. The effect is easily observed,
and results are presented below for several different balls rolling down an inclined plane at
various angles of inclination.
The results raise interesting questions about the nature of the friction force acting on a
rolling object. When an object rolls without slipping on a horizontal or on an inclined surface
then the bottom of the object is momentarily at rest on the surface. Consequently, the
friction force acting on the object is due to static rather than sliding friction. On a horizontal
surface, rolling results in the dissipation of kinetic energy, given that the rolling object
decelerates and eventually comes to rest. On an inclined surface, the static friction force
does not dissipate energy. Why then does dissipation occur in one case but not the other,
given that both friction forces arise from static friction? The answer is not immediately
obvious, appears not to have been considered in physics texts or teaching articles, and is
outlined in the following section.

2. Rolling theory

N
R-x
F D v

FIG. 1: A ball rolling down an inclined plane with the normal reaction force, N , offset by a distance
D from the center of the ball. F is the friction force on the ball.

Figure 1 shows a ball of mass M and radius R rolling down a rigid plane inclined at an
angle θ to the horizontal. The bottom of the ball is slightly compressed, by a distance x
which we can assume to be much less than R to simplify the algebra. In that case, the ball
rolls without slipping provided that v = Rω where v is the linear velocity of the center of
mass in a direction parallel to the plane and ω is the angular velocity of the ball. Since the
leading edge of the ball rotates into the plane and the trailing edge rotates out of the plane,

3
it can be assumed that the ball exerts a larger normal force on the incline at the front of
the ball than at the rear. We will therefore assume that the normal reaction force, N , is
shifted by a distance D towards the front of the ball. The bottom of the ball comes to rest
on the inclined plane, with the result that a static friction force, F , opposes motion of the
ball down the incline.
The equations of motion describing the ball are

dv
M = M g sin θ − F (1)
dt

N = M g cos θ (2)

and
dω Icm dv
F R − N D = Icm = (3)
dt R dt
where Icm = kM R2 is the moment of inertia of the ball about an axis through its center of
mass, and k is a constant equal to 2/5 for a solid, uniform ball or k = 2/3 for a thin-walled
sphere. For a thick-walled sphere such as a tennis or squash ball, k can be calculated by
subtracting the Icm value of an inner solid sphere from that for an outer solid sphere. It is
easy to show from the above equations that
 
dv dω g D
=R = sin θ − cos θ (4)
dt dt (1 + k) R

and
F [k tan θ + (D/R)]
µS = = (5)
N (1 + k)
where µS is an effective coefficient of static friction defined by the ratio F/N . In general, µS
is not a constant since it varies with θ up to a maximum value approximately equal to µk , the
coefficient of sliding friction. µS consists of two components, the first of which varies with
θ and the second is independent of θ, as noted previously [2]. The first component vanishes
on a horizontal surface, while the second component can be defined as the coefficient of
rolling friction, µR = D/[(1 + k)R]. On a horizontal surface, dv/dt = −µR g. On an inclined
surface, dv/dt can be positive, zero or negative, depending on the magnitude of µR and the
angle of inclination.
The D/R terms in Eq. (4) and (5) are usually ignored when examining motion on an
inclined plane, in which case µS = k tan θ/(1 + k). For example, µS = 0.05 for a solid sphere
rolling down a θ = 10◦ incline. The neglect of the D/R terms is justified when µR < 0.001,

4
as it usually is for a smooth, hard sphere rolling on a smooth, hard surface. In that case, the
total energy is conserved since static friction does not dissipate energy and since the rolling
friction force is negligible.
A different situation arises when a ball rolls without slipping on a horizontal surface. In
that case, the rolling friction force is given from Eq. (5) by

M gD
F = µR M g = −M dv/dt = (6)
(1 + k)R

so the decrease in the translational energy in one revolution is

2πM gD
∆(0.5M v 2 ) = F × 2πR = . (7)
(1 + k)

The decrease in the rotational energy in one revolution is equal to the net torque on the ball
multiplied by the angular displacement, 2π. Since θ = 0 for a horizontal surface, we find
from Eq. (4) that
dω 2πkM gD
∆(0.5Icm ω 2 ) = Icm × 2π = . (8)
dt (1 + k)
The net loss of energy is therefore equal to 2πM gD per revolution. Since D is proportional
to µR , the energy loss is directly proportional to µR and it is directly proportional to the
friction force.
Why, then, is energy dissipated when a ball rolls on a horizontal surface? The answer can
be found by considering the work done by the friction and normal reaction forces. Suppose
that a ball is rolling without slipping on a horizontal surface and its linear speed decreases
at a constant rate from v0 to v1 in one revolution. In that case, the rolling friction force
acts to decrease the rolling speed and v12 = v02 − 2µR g × 2πR. Consequently, the decrease in
translational energy is
1 1
M v02 − M v12 = F × 2πR (9)
2 2
as expected and as assumed in Eq. (7). However, F also exerts a torque F R on the ball in
a direction which acts to increase the angular velocity. In one revolution, the work done by
that torque is F R ×2π, meaning that the net work done by F is zero and the effect of F is to
convert translational energy into rotational energy, exactly as it does on an inclined plane.
Nevertheless, there is a net loss of energy in one revolution, given by the work done by the
torque N D in decreasing the rotational energy. The work done by that torque component
is equal to M gD × 2π, which is the same as the net loss of energy found previously.

5
 Energy is therefore dissipated when a ball rolls on a horizontal surface, but it is not
dissipated as a direct result of the friction force acting on the ball. Furthermore, the normal
reaction force is not a dissipative force either, since it does no work. The situation is similar
to that when a ball bounces vertically on a rigid, horizontal surface. If the ball is incident
at speed v0 and bounces at a lower speed v1 then energy is dissipated during the bounce
as a result of compression and expansion of the material in the contact region. The work
done by N is zero since the point of application of N remains at rest. Nevertheless, if the
center of mass of the ball rises during the impact by a distance dy in a small time dt, then
the work done on the ball is N dy (ignoring the small gravitational force compared with the
impact force), the change in ball momentum is N dt and the change in momentum during
the whole impact is ∫ N dt = M (v0 + v1 ).
The kinetic energy lost during the whole impact duration is given by ∫ N dy = 0.5M (v02 −
v12 ), representing the area enclosed by the N vs y hysteresis curve. In any mechanical
hysteresis cycle, the compression force is always larger than the expansion force, leading
to a net loss of mechanical energy. Since no work is done by N , the total energy remains
constant when we include the energy dissipated by internal friction within the ball. The
component ∫ N dy represents only the energy dissipated in the ball, and it would be zero if
the ball was perfectly elastic. In the same way, N D dφ represents the work done on a ball
R
by the torque component N D when the ball rotates through a small angle dφ, and N D dφ
evaluated over one revolution is equal to the energy dissipated in one revolution.
The energy loss in a rolling ball arises in a similar manner to that in a bouncing ball.
When a soft ball rolls on a hard surface, the ball compresses at the leading edge and expands
at the trailing edge. The compression force is larger than the expansion force, leading to
an offset in the normal reaction force and a net loss of energy due to internal friction or
hysteresis losses in the compressed volume of the ball. When a hard ball rolls on a hard
surface, deformation of the ball is much smaller, and so is the coefficient of rolling friction.

3. Experimental results

A simple experiment was undertaken by rolling various balls down an 85 cm long, smooth
wood incline. The incline was leveled in the transverse direction using a spirit level and the
angle was adjusted between zero and 2.8◦ in several steps by raising one end by up to 4.2 cm.
If the ball did not roll by itself when placed at rest near the top of the incline then it was

6
rolled by hand at low speed, typically about 0.2 m/s, to get it started. The acceleration down
the incline was measured by filming the ball with a video camera over a 60 cm path length.
The film was analysed using Tracker motion analysis software, recording the displacement
along the incline at intervals of 0.1 s. The displacement vs time data were fitted with a
quadratic to measure the acceleration. Results for three different balls are shown in Fig. 2
for a case where θ = 0.75◦ , indicating that µR for the sad ball was significantly larger than
that for the steel and happy balls and that it rolled to a stop down the incline.

0.7

0
0.6 0.75 incline
Steel
ball
0.5

0.4
x (m)

0.3 Happy
ball
Sad ball
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
t (s)

FIG. 2: Experimental results obtained by rolling three different balls down a 0.75◦ incline.

For each ball and each different incline angle, a value of D/R was calculated from the
relation
D (1 + k)a
= tan θ − (10)
R g cos θ
where a is the measured acceleration (or deceleration) down the incline. The coefficient of
rolling friction, µR , was then calculated from the relation µR = D/[(1 + k)R]. The mean
and standard deviation values of µR obtained from at least 10 different measurements for
each ball are shown for six different balls in Table 1.

7
 Table 1. Measured values of µR

Ball k µR
Steel 0.4 0.0001 ± 0.0004
Billiard 0.4 0.0002 ± 0.0003
Happy 0.4 0.0029 ± 0.0006
Squash 0.5 0.007 ± 0.001
Sad 0.4 0.015 ± 0.001
Tennis 0.55 0.015 ± 0.0007

There were no significant differences between the µR values obtained on a horizontal

surface compared with the inclined surfaces. The values of µR for the steel and billiard balls
were too small to obtain accurate values from the acceleration data, but the acceleration
data were useful since they provided accurate estimates of the angles of the inclined plane.
As noted previously [3], balls with a high coefficient of restitution have lower values of µR
than balls with a low coefficient of restitution, since the result in each case depends on the
energy loss during compression and expansion of the ball. The happy and sad balls are both
made from rubber compounds but the sad ball has a very low coefficient of restitution and
consequently has a large value of µR . A surprising exception was the tennis ball, which has
a relatively high coefficient of restitution. However, when a tennis ball is rolling, there is
negligible compression of the rubber in the ball, and µR is determined mainly by compression
of the inelastic, soft cloth cover. Both the tennis and the sad balls rolled down the incline
at approximately constant speeds when the angle of the inclined surface was 1.4◦ , and rolled
to a stop when the angle was less than 1.4◦ .

4. Conclusions
An object that rolls without slipping down an inclined plane is subject to a net static
friction force having two separate components. One component is proportional to the slope of
the inclined surface and is typically much larger than the second component, which remains
constant regardless of the incline angle. The first component opposes the gravitational force
down the incline and allows the object to roll without slipping. The second component is
present even on a horizontal surface and can be described as a pure rolling friction force,
with an associated coefficient of rolling friction, µR . For a hard object rolling on a hard
surface, µR is typically less than 0.0001. For a soft object rolling on a hard surface, or

8
 vice versa, µR can be larger than 0.01, in which case the object can roll to a stop down an
inclined surface if the incline angle is less than about one degree.
The effect of static friction on a rolling object is to reduce the linear speed of the object
and to increase the rotational speed, the net work done by the friction force being zero.
Nevertheless, a ball that rolls without slipping on a horizontal or inclined surface can roll to
a stop, since energy is dissipated as a result of compression and expansion of the object in
the contact region. The compression force is larger than the expansion force, with the result
that the normal reaction force is shifted slightly towards the leading edge of the contact
region. An opposing torque is generated by the offset in the normal reaction force, which
has the effect of reducing the angular velocity of the object. The work done by the opposing
torque is equal to the energy that is dissipated and is directly proportional to µR and to the
rolling friction force.

References

[1] Carnero C, Aguiar J and Hierrezuelo J 1993 The work of the frictional force in rolling
motion Phys. Ed. 28 225-227
[2] Vozdecky L, Bartos J and Musilova J 2014 Rolling friction-models and experiment. An
undergraduate student project Eur. J. Phys. 35 055004
[3] Cross R 2015 Why low bounce balls exhibit high rolling resistance Phys. Ed. in print.

View publication stats