Effects of sandpaper grit and aluminium roughness on coefficient of static friction in

sandpaper-aluminium interfaces

Jonathon Leckrone - Boston Suhr

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Physics

Section 11B

Mr. McMillan/Mrs. Cybulski

8th June 2017

Effects of sandpaper grit and aluminium roughness on coefficient of static friction in

sandpaper-aluminium interfaces

The relationships between grit of sandpaper and roughness of aluminium in

sandpaper-aluminium interfaces and the resulting maximum coefficient of static friction

before sliding occurred were explored. The aim was to find the combination of sandpaper

grit and roughness that would produce the highest coefficient of static friction. The

applications of these relationships relate to adhesion railways, where sand is applied to

railway tracks to increase the friction between the wheels and rails. When the wheels are

not sliding on the rails, the traction is equal to the static friction, so maximising static

friction is beneficial to prevent wheel slip, when traction is then equal to the lesser kinetic

friction. To calculate the coefficient of static friction, the maximum force required to pull

aluminium blocks of varying roughnesses across sandpaper of varying grits were found

using a force sensor. The effects of the sandpaper grit and aluminium roughness were

found to have no statistically significant effect both independently and combined in these

trials. Of the treatments applied, metal roughness had the largest effect on the coefficient

of static friction, with the high roughness and high grit trials producing the highest

average coefficient of static friction.

 Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 3
Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 7
Experimental Design ........................................................................................................... 8
Data Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A: How to Randomize...................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Setting up the Experimental Area ............................................................... 24
Appendix C: Calculating Coefficient of Static Friction ................................................... 25
Appendix D: Interpolated Parsimonious Prediction ......................................................... 26
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 27
 Leckrone Suhr 1

Introduction

Trains that lose control can have rather disastrous effects. In the best case, this can

simply mean a train speeding through a station it was supposed to stop at; at worse, it can

mean large scale damage, both personal and property. Thus, being able to stop a train

when it is supposed to stop, is important. Sanding, or pouring sand on railway tracks to

increase traction, is a common method of ensuring good traction in sub-optimal

conditions; most trains running on an adhesion railway will carry a large container of

sand with them, which they use to spray onto the tracks in adverse conditions such as

leaves or debris on the line. This sand increases the traction that the trains wheels have

with the tracks, making it more maneuverable.

This research sought to determine the best grit and roughness in a sanding

application by analysing the coefficient of static friction between aluminium of varying

roughness and sandpapers of varying grit. This aluminium worked as a stand-in for the

wheel, which, while not being made of aluminium specifically in most cases, is still made

of metal; the sandpaper worked as a stand-in for the sand contained in the sandbox. The

coefficient of static friction was calculated after measuring the force required to start

movement. From this, the best combination of aluminium roughness and sandpaper grit

was determined.

This research could be used to optimise the process of sanding in trains. By

knowing which combination of metal roughness and sandpaper grit has the highest

coefficient of static friction, train manufacturers can make an informed decision on what

particle size of sand to fill their sandboxes with and what wheel roughness will provide
 Leckrone Suhr 2

them with the best control over the train in adverse conditions, improving their safety and

avoiding potential disaster.

 Leckrone Suhr 3

Review of Literature

This experiment focused on calculating the coefficient of static friction between

an aluminium and sandpaper interface using calculated normal forces based on mass and

the maximum force applied to the aluminium before movement began. The idea was to

maximise the coefficient of static friction to maximise the traction between two surfaces.

The experiment focused on calculating the coefficient of static friction between two

sliding surfaces of different roughnesses of aluminium and sandpaper, akin to the sanding

method employed by adhesion railways. Because traction is related to the coefficient of

static friction, the found data can be applied to a wheel-surface interface. Interfaces

between two flat horizontal surfaces rather than a wheel-surface interface was chosen

because they were easier to manipulate. Sandpaper was chosen in place of sand because it

was easier to manipulate, source, and quantify measurements like grit. The roughness of

the aluminium was chosen to be changed to reflect roughnesses obtained over time of real

life surfaces involved in heavy industry like the aforementioned railway application.

Friction is a force that acts parallel to the plane of motion of an interface between

two objects. An object which is not moving has no friction because there are no forces for

friction to oppose. Kinetic friction acts between two sliding objects, and static friction

occurs between surfaces which are not sliding but still have forces applied, such as when

the applied forces do not overcome the maximum force produced by the static friction or

when one surface rotates against another without sliding (Friction).

Each kind of friction has a coefficient which indicates how difficult it is to cause

movement. The coefficient of static friction is a unitless coefficient that determines the

maximum force of static friction. It is larger than the coefficient of kinetic friction, the
 Leckrone Suhr 4

force acting in the opposite direction of an object which is sliding along another because

it is easier to keep an object in motion than to start it in motion (Friction).

Static friction is a force that is produced in the opposite direction and same

magnitude when an object is pushed, keeping it in place. Once the maximum static

friction force is overcome, the object will move. The maximum static friction force, or

the maximum force that will be produced in the opposite direction when an object is

pushed, can be found using the coefficient of static friction, as shown in the following

equation, where () is the maximum force of static friction, is the coefficient of

static friction between the two surfaces, and is the normal force acting on the object

(Static Friction).

() =

The normal force acting on an object is the force acting perpendicular to the

object. For an object resting on Earths surface or a surface parallel to Earths surface, the

normal force acts perpendicular to Earths surface, opposite the direction of gravity, and

is equal in magnitude to the force of gravity (Normal Force). It is the reason objects do

not fall through surfaces due to the force of gravity.

Previous work done focusing on friction in a particle-metal interface indicates that

increasing particle size and metal roughness will increase the coefficient of friction

between the material and the sand. Particle size has also been found to impact the wear

on the metal, which is a factor to be considered in this experiment. Other factors found to

be significant on the adhesion of train wheels to the tracks are other potential foreign

contaminators.
 Leckrone Suhr 5

In one study with a particular interested in particle size, research to find the

effects of sand particle size and wheel slip on the adhesion and wearing of wheel-on-rail

analogues both with and without leaves was conducted by Oscar Arias-Cuevas, Zili Li,

and Roger Lewis. The motion of train wheels on rails was simulated in a controlled

laboratory and then sands of different particle sizes were poured in between the wheel

and rail similar to how actual sanding is conducted. Wheel slip and coating was

controlled. It was found that larger particle sizes and higher slips lead to higher adhesion,

wear, and quicker stripping away of debris from the wheels. (Arias-Cuevas, et al.). The

higher adhesion as a result of particle size found in these trials supports the hypothesis

that high grit and roughness will produce the greatest coefficient of static friction.

In another study related to the roughness of the metal conducted by Morimichi

Uesugi, Hideaki Kishida, and Yasunori Tsubakiharaat the Tokyo Institute of Technology,

observations about the change in position, shear deformation, and motion, rolling or

sliding, were carried out on the sand involved in sand-steel friction rigs. It was found that

a greater displacement was experienced with a rough interface than a smooth one and that

the rough interface caused sand to slide more often than a smooth interface which

facilitated rolling. The coefficient of friction at yield, the point the steel began to move,

or coefficient of static friction and the fact that sliding also tended to occur at the point of

yield were also observed. (Uesugi, Morimichi, et al.).

Further research from Roger Lewis in conjunction with E.A. Gallardo-Hernandaz

was done on how external contaminants could affect railway adhesion, namely oil,

leaves, and sand. Oil, leaves, and water all lowered adhesion levels when the tracks were
 Leckrone Suhr 6

initially dry, with leaves having the biggest impact. In all cases, sand raised the adhesion

levels back up (Gallardo-Hernandez, et al.).

The prior research found generally agree that sand does improve adhesion or

traction in an interface, however some of the research focused on how sand increased

traction over smooth metal or intentionally slippier surfaces like wet debris. The research

focusing on how different particle sizes increased traction on slippery surfaces in a

wheel-rail interface provides the clearest support for the hypothesis, finding that larger

particles increased the traction more.

 Leckrone Suhr 7

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine how the grit of sandpaper affects the coefficient of static friction

between an interface with varying roughnesses of aluminium.

Hypothesis:

Rougher sandpaper against a rough aluminium surface will produce the greatest

coefficient of static friction.

Data measured:

Independent variables were roughness of sandpaper, measured in grits 150, 100

and thirty-six, and the roughness of the aluminium based on the difference between the

highest and lowest points on the surface in millimetres, zero, one, and two, as cut per the

procedure. The dependent variable, force in Newtons required to start movement as

collected by a LabQuest force sensor, was used to calculate the coefficient of static

friction. A two-factor design of experiment was conducted to find the individual effects

of each variable and their interaction effects. Sixty-three trials were conducted for a total

of nine each for every combination of treatment with twenty-seven total standards

conducted.
 Leckrone Suhr 8

Experimental Design

Materials:

LabQuest (2) 200g Weight

LabQuest Force Sensor (0.001 N) (2) 100g Weight
Pulley with clamp (1) 50g Weight
300ml or greater cup or small bucket (3) 4.5cm x 2cm x 2cm Aluminium bars
Masking tape (1) 23cm x 2cm x 2cm Aluminium stop bar
Band saw 150 grit sandpaper (29cm x 23cm)
Funnel 100 grit sandpaper (29cm x 23cm)
10 ft. String 36 grit sandpaper (29cm x 23cm)
500g Sand Ruler (1 mm)
Scale (0.1 g)

Procedures:

1 Randomise trials in accordance with appendix A.

2 Set up the trial area in accordance with appendix B.
3 Before each set of seven trials, record the masses of each aluminium bar.
4 Increase the time for data collection on the LabQuest to be around 200 seconds.
5 For each individual trial, place the correct roughness of aluminium on top of the
sandpaper in accordance with the randomization and connect the LabQuest Force
Sensor hook to the aluminium bars string. Add a 200-gram weight on top of the
aluminium to prevent it from lifting up from the sandpaper instead of sliding, and
tape the sandpapers edges down to prevent it from sliding as well.
6 Zero the Force Sensor with slack in the string going from the hook to the
aluminium and begin recording data.
7 Release the slack between the force sensor and aluminium gradually and begin
pouring sand over the weights to apply a more even force increase than moving it
by hand.
8 If the bucket fills before movement occurs, restart the trial with weights closest to
the mass in the bucket to start and pour the sand over them. In future trials with
the same combination of treatments, these weights can be added from the start so
they do not need to be redone.
9 Wait for the aluminium to begin sliding and record the maximum force just before
movement started.
10 Repeat steps five through nine for each trial in the order generated in step one.
 Leckrone Suhr 9

11 Repeat the seven trial structure a total of nine times for a total of sixty-three trial
results.
Diagram:

Figure 1. Materials

Figure one shows the materials used in the trials, excluding the band saw and

ruler used to cut the aluminium bars, the remainder of the bale of string, and additional

sand used to pull the force sensor.

 Leckrone Suhr 10

Figure 2. Experiment setup

Figure two shows the tabletop portion of a trial setup, including the force sensor,

sandpaper, aluminium bar with weight, and metal stop to prevent the force sensor from

falling, as well as the opposite end of the setup where sand was added into a cup to add

weight to the force sensor.

 Leckrone Suhr 11

Data and Observations

Data:

Table 1
Design of Experiment Values
Roughness Grit

Low (-) Standard High (+) Low (-) Standard High (+)
0 1 2 150 100 36

Table one displays the high, standard, and low variables for the experiment. The

roughness values measure the difference between the highest and lowest points along the

sliding surface of aluminium in millimeters. For example, the aluminium used in standard

trials had a surface which included slots cut to a depth to 1 mm. Sandpaper grit was

selected based on the range of particle sizes in each grit (Mitchell) compared with

previous research (Arias-Cuevas).

Table 2
Data
Trials
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Average
Roughness Grit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 force (N)
(+) (+) 1.46 1.73 1.5 1.41 1.5 1.42 1.42 1.33 1.39 1.46
(+) (-) 1.57 1.54 1.18 1.47 1.35 1.22 1.47 1.51 1.22 1.39
(-) (+) 1.01 1 1.2 0.93 1 1.08 1.65 1.1 1.15 1.12
(-) (-) 1.45 1.16 1.25 1.13 1.29 1.21 1.13 1.08 1.01 1.19
Standard 1.65 1.63 1.67 1.61 1.58 1.70 1.64 1.66 1.58 1.64
Standard 1.64 1.65 1.59 1.62 1.69 1.50 1.67 1.58 1.48 1.60
Standard 1.66 1.64 1.58 1.58 1.71 1.42 1.66 1.43 1.67 1.59

Table two shows the data gathered in the nine trials from the experiment, as well

as how many trials were conducted and the average for each treatment combination and

standard.
 Leckrone Suhr 12

Observations:

Table 3
Observations
Trial number Observations
1 Aluminium weighted with 100g weight
Aluminium weighted with 200g weight.
2 Force sensor pushed stopper off the table.
Aluminium weighted with 250g weight,
3 stopper apparatus changed.
Aluminium weighted with 300g weight.
4 Trial reran because of an extreme outlier.
5 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
6 Aluminium weighted with 350g weight
7 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
8 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
9 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
10 Aluminium weighted with 350g weight
11 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
12 Aluminium weighted with 100g weight
13 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
14 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
15 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
16 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
17 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
18 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
19 Aluminium weighted with 100g weight
20 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
21 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
22 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
23 Aluminium weighted with 100g weight
24 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
25 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
26 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
27 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
28 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
29 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
30 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
31 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
32 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
33 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
34 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
 Leckrone Suhr 13

Trial number Observations

35 Aluminium weighted with 100g weight
36 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
37 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
38 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
39 Aluminium weighted with 250g weight
40 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
41 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
42 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
43 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
44 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
45 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
46 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
47 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
48 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
49 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
50 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
51 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
52 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight
53 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
54 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
55 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
56 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
57 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
58 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
59 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
60 Aluminium weighted with 200g weight
61 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
62 Aluminium weighted with 300g weight
63 Aluminium weighted with 150g weight

Table 3, above, lists the observations that were collected throughout the course of

the research.
 Leckrone Suhr 14

Maximum force reached

before movement is achieved

Increasing force as sand is poured

Initial jump from placing weights in cup

Figure 3. Trial results

Figure three shows typical trial results as displayed by the LabQuest. The initial

jump up from zero force is attributed to the placing of the initial weights into the cup, and

the more gradual slope is attributed to the pouring of sand into the cup. The sudden

decrease occurred when the aluminium began moving because the force applied

overcame static friction.

 Leckrone Suhr 15

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4
Design of Experiment Values
Roughness Grit

Low (-) Standard High (+) Low (-) Standard High (+)
0 1 2 150 100 36

Table four displays the high, standard, and low variables for the experiment.

These variables were used to change the coefficient of static friction in an interface

between aluminium and sandpaper. The different roughnesses of aluminium were slid

across different grits of sandpaper and the force required to move them was recorded to

calculate the coefficient of static friction.

Table 5
Trial Results and Averages
Trials
Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Average
Roughness Grit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 coefficient
(+) (+) 1.46 1.73 1.5 1.41 1.5 1.42 1.42 1.33 1.39 1.46
(+) (-) 1.57 1.54 1.18 1.47 1.35 1.22 1.47 1.51 1.22 1.39
(-) (+) 1.01 1 1.2 0.93 1 1.08 1.65 1.1 1.15 1.12
(-) (-) 1.45 1.16 1.25 1.13 1.29 1.21 1.13 1.08 1.01 1.19
Grand Average: 1.29

Table five contains the results of all seven trials and the averages for the four

combinations of aluminium roughness and sandpaper grit. The grand average was found

to be 1.29, meaning that on average the coefficient of static friction between the

aluminium bar and the sandpaper was 1.29.

 Leckrone Suhr 16

Table 6
Effect of Metal Roughness
- +
1.12 1.46

1.19 1.39
Average 1.16 1.43

Table six shows the effect of the chosen metal roughnesses on the coefficient of

static friction in the conducted trials. Figure 4 is a graph of the average coefficient of

static friction when the metal roughness was held alternately high and low. The effect of

metal was found to be 0.27, making the effect of metal roughness statistically

insignificant when compared to double the range of standards at -0.58 and 0.58. Although

metal roughness on its own was statistically insignificant, its effect value of 0.27 made it

the variable that came the closest to double the range of standards at -0.58 and 0.58. It is

believed that it played the largest role in affecting the coefficient of static friction

between the aluminium and the sandpaper.

Table 7
Effect of Sandpaper Grit
- +
1.39 1.46

1.19 1.12
Average 1.29 1.29

Table seven shows the effect of the chosen sandpaper grits on the coefficient of

static friction in the conducted trials. Figure 5 is a graph of the average coefficient of

static friction when the sandpaper was alternated high and low. The effect of grit was

found to be 0.00, indicating that the sandpaper grit had no effect on the coefficient of

static friction, and thus deeming it insignificant, as it falls within two times the range of
 Leckrone Suhr 17

standards, -0.58 to 0.58.

Table 8
Interaction Effect of Metal Roughness and
Sandpaper Grit

Interaction Effect
Roughness
- +
+ 1.12 1.46
Grit - 1.19 1.39

Table eight shows the effects of both of the chosen variables on the coefficient of

static friction in the conducted trials. Figure 6 is a graph of the values presented in Table

8. The effect of both metal roughness and sandpaper grit was found to be -0.07, making

the interaction effect statistically insignificant when compared to double the range of

standards at -0.58 and 0.58. In the interaction effect graph, the slopes of the line segments

are not parallel but are close to being such, so it can be determined that the variables did

not interact. As the metal roughness and sandpaper grit went up, so did the coefficient of

static friction. When comparing the sandpaper grit when held low, there was a much

smaller increase in the coefficient of static friction when going from low to high metal

roughness.
 Leckrone Suhr 18

Figure 4. Range of Standards Scatter Plot

Figure four shows the coefficient of static friction across the standards, ordered as

they were conducted. The dots found on the dot plot of the standards found above are not

in a straight line, which means that factors hat were not controlled may have affected the

experiment. It appears that the standards became less consistent over time, indicating that

there was increasing noise throughout the experiment.

Figure 5. Significance Testing

Figure five contains the interaction effect, both effect values, double the range of

standards, and double the range of standards negated. Fences were set up at twice the

range of the standards data. Using this as a statistical test, all effect values within the

barriers are statistically insignificant, so in this case, all 3 effect values were insignificant.

The values for double the range of standards were -0.58 and 0.58, as the range of

standards was 0.29. Note that the range of the entire data set was 0.8. The effect of metal
 Leckrone Suhr 19

roughness was the farthest from 0 at 0.27, the interaction effect 2nd farthest at -0.07, and

the effect of sandpaper grit was found to be 0.00.

Closing Interpretations:

It is clear from the effect dot plot and parsimonious prediction that statistically no

factors were significant. This is not to say that sand or aluminium roughness have no

effects on the coefficient of static friction between aluminium and sand, but the levels of

aluminium roughness and sandpaper grit had no statistical impact on their coefficient of

static friction in these trials compared to the standards. It is known that sand is used to

increase traction between metal interfaces on railways, for example, however those

interfaces involve metal on metal interfaces with particles that are allowed to be

displaced, unlike these trials where the particles were affixed to a surface. Although

statistically insignificant, the roughness of aluminium was still the variable that came the

closest to being statistically significant.

 Leckrone Suhr 20

Conclusion

The hypothesis that the highest coefficient of static friction would be produced

between the rough aluminium and grittiest sandpaper was accepted. The highest average

coefficient of friction, 1.46, was produced by those trials with a difference in surface

depth of 2mm, the high value, and a sandpaper grit of 36, the grit with the largest particle

size, however neither the individual nor combined effects were found to be statistically

significant based on the range of standards. Trials with a low grit but high roughness

were found to have the second-highest average coefficient, at 1.39, while trials with low

roughness and high and low grit were less, at 1.12 and 1.19 respectively.

Trials were carried out by applying increasing force on the back end of a force

sensor measuring the maximum force before movement between the aluminium-

sandpaper interface. Different grits of sandpaper and roughnesses of aluminium were

used and a two-factor design of experiment carried out to find the individual and

interaction effects of both factors. The normal force acting on the blocks of aluminium

was found using the mass found via a scale and acceleration due to gravity, and that and

the found maximum force were used to find the coefficient of static friction. The effect of

sandpaper grit was found to be zero, implying that particle size does not change the

coefficient of static friction, the effect of metal roughness was found to be 0.27, implying

a difference of 0.27 in coefficients of static friction between a trial with a high roughness

and a trial with a low roughness, and an interaction effect of -0.07, implying very little

interaction between the two treatments.

The sandpaper grits used in these trials were based on how grit number correlates

to the size of particles used in producing it in accordance with the CAMI Grit designation

(Lees). The grits chosen reflect particle sizes used in previous research (Arias-Cuevas, et
 Leckrone Suhr 21

al.). Higher particle sizes were found to increase friction in previous research (Arias-

Cuevas, et al.), as was a rougher metal surface (Uesugi, Morimichi, et al.). The trials with

the roughest surface and largest particle size used in the sandpaper produced the greatest

average coefficient of static friction. It is important to note, however, that the individual

effect of sandpaper grit on its own was found to be zero as part of the two-factor design

of experiment, possibly because sandpaper does not allow for particle displacement or

particles filling the space left by roughness in the aluminium surfaces. The aluminium

blocks resting on top of unmoving particles in the sandpaper instead of being able to

settle into the sand and create larger contact areas may have also contributed to the

difference in the significance of sand particle size seen in other research.

Based on the variability found in the standards and other trials, it is believed that

noise did affect the experiment. The noise could have originated from wear being added

to the aluminium and sandpaper through the course of trials due to the abrasiveness of

both surfaces. To prevent lifting of the back of the aluminium blocks, a 200-gram weight

was placed on the back, which may have introduced noise. Each block and the weight

was re-weighed before each trial, with each trials normal force calculated using these

measured weights.

In the event of further research, individual sand particles would be used instead of

sandpaper to reflect aspects of the sand-metal interface like sand displacement that were

not modelled by sandpaper as previously mentioned. This displacement is believed to be

significant as the displacement could be due to the rolling of sand, and loose particles can

also enter the cavities left in the rough metal in the interface (Uesugi, Morimichi, et al.).

To relate better to real-world applications like adhesion sanding on railways, the

 Leckrone Suhr 22

roughness of aluminium would also be changed to better reflect real world wear instead

of a set cut depth that would not be likely to occur by regular use. Metal blocks with

additional weight to remove any noise introduced by the separate weight using to

increase the normal force acting on them may also be used, in addition to testing on

additional materials like steel.

An immediate application of this research is on adhesion railways where sand is

distributed onto railway tracks to increase traction because traction is related to friction.

Traction is the amount of force a wheel applies until it slips. The tractive force is equal to

the force of friction between the wheel and ground. As long as the wheel does not slip

and is only turning, the traction is equal to static friction. If the wheel slips and begins to

slide along the surface, the tractive force is equal to the maximum kinetic friction

(Friction and Traction). Because of these relationships, sand particle sizes or metal

roughnesses found to increase the maximum coefficient of static friction would, in turn,

increase maximum traction.

It is important to note that in these trials sandpaper grit, and in turn particle size,

had an effect value of zero, but that other trials have shown sand particle size to have

some effect on the coefficient of friction (Arias-Cuevas, et al.). These factors may have

been insignificant in this research because the standard in these trials was not the same as

a real world control. Because this research focused on how different particle sizes and

roughnesses changed the static friction, not on how much they increased over the real-

world control of bare metal on metal. Instead of this control situation, the standard in this

experiment was middle values of both grit and roughness, which are not the standard in

the real world applications of these types of interfaces.

 Leckrone Suhr 23

Appendix A: How to Randomize

Procedure:

1. Assign each combination of treatment, sandpaper grit and roughness of

aluminium, by assigning each combination of the treatments a number and using a
random number generator to determine the order of trials, with the middle values
for each used for standards. Each set of trials includes three standards and one
each of high-high, high-low, low-high, and low-low trials.

2. On the TI-Nspire, Insert a Lists & Spreadsheet page.

3. In the formula bar for column A, type in =seq(x,x,1,7) to allow the numbers
from one to seven to be printed in the column.

4. In the formula bar for column B, type in randsamp(a,7,1) to allow the numbers
from one to seven to be randomly selected without replacement for each trial.
 Leckrone Suhr 24

Appendix B: Setting up the Experimental Area

1. Attaching a pulley to the edge of the lab table via clamp with an open area on the
table in front of it.

2. Attach string to the bucket or cup and hang it over the pulley, with the other end
attached to the hole in the back of the LabQuest Force Sensor.

3. Roughen the standard and high aluminium bars by cutting 1 or 2 millimeter slots,
respectively, at even intervals along the bottom of each.

4. Drill a hole in the top of each and tie string to each. Tie a loop in the other end of
the string so that it may be connected to the force sensors hook.

5. Tape down an aluminium stop between the force sensor and the pulley with the
string running underneath it so that the force sensor does not fall off the table.
Place the sandpaper in the open area in front of the pulley and constrain the
sandpaper by placing tape strips around the edges of the sandpaper.
 Leckrone Suhr 25

Appendix C: Calculating Coefficient of Static Friction

1. Convert the mass of the aluminium bar and any added weights to

kilograms and sum them to find the total mass, in kilograms, of the aluminium

and weights pulled by the force sensor.

2. Obtain the maximum force exerted during the trial from the LabQuest

Force Sensor.

()
3. Using the equation = , where () is the maximum force
()

found, is acceleration due to gravity, and is mass, find , the coefficient of

static friction, as shown in figure one.

()
= = 0.234 = 9.8 () = 3.596
()

3.596
= 1.57 =
(9.8 0.234)

Figure 1. Calculation of Coefficient of Static Friction

 Leckrone Suhr 26

Appendix D: Interpolated Parsimonious Prediction

By using the original prediction equation and adjusting it to exclude any

insignificant factors, the equation for the parsimonious prediction is left. Because none of

the factors were found to be significant, the parsimonious prediction equation for this

experiment is Y = 1.29 + noise. Because no factor was significant, no matter what

interpolated prediction is carried out, the answer will always be 1.29. If the experiment

were to be rerun, a coefficient of static friction of 1.29 plus noise can be expected for

every combination of roughness and grit.

 Leckrone Suhr 27

Works Cited

Arias-Cuevas, et al. "A laboratory investigation of the influence on the particle size and

slip during sanding on the adhesion and wear in the wheel-rail contact." Wear

May 2011: 175-84. Print. 18 Apr. 2017

"Friction." Boston University Physics. N.p., 26 July 2004. Web.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Friction.html. 18 Apr. 2017.

"Friction and Traction." VEX EDR Curriculum. VEX Robotics, n.d. Web.

http://curriculum.vexrobotics.com/curriculum/drivetrain-design/friction-and-

traction. 18 Apr. 2017.

Gallardo-Hernandez, et al. "Twin disc assessment of wheel/rail adhesion." Wear 265.9

(2008): 1309-1316. 18 Apr. 2017.

Lees, Stuart. "Comparing Abrasive Systems." Stu's Shed. N.p., 09 May 2008. Web. 15

May 2017.

Mitchell, David S. Conservation of Architectural Ironwork. New York: Routledge, 2017.

Print. 18 Apr. 2017

"Normal Force." Boston University Physics. N.p., 15 Jan. 2006. Web.

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/normal.html. 18 Apr. 2017.

"Static Friction." Boston University Physics. N.p., 31 Jan. 2006. Web.

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class05/static.html. 18 Apr. 2017.

Uesugi, Morimichi, et al. "Behavior of sand particles in sand-steel friction." Soils and

Foundations Mar. 1988: 107-18. Print. 18 Apr. 2017.