Formatted: Bottom: 0.

94"

Accounting for Friction and Air

Drag on a Roller Coaster
Formatted: Left

Brian Ruggles
Pacific Lutheran University
Physics 499B Capstone
May 26, 2016

Formatted: Left

Abstract
This project explored the complications faced by roller coaster engineers in carefully designing a
launch system to ensure that roller coaster trains with varying masses always reach the same
height when after being launched horizontally from rest. The goal was to derive and test a
mathematical model which engineers could use to determine the required launch velocity of a
train depending on its massfor any given mass, such that the train always stops at the same
height. The mathematical model was derived by solving the differential equation involving air
drag and friction from in Newton’s Second 2nd Law. The mathematical model was tested by
comparing the solution to the differential equation with the experimental results from a rubber
band-launched K’nex roller coaster. To simplify the experiment, the train was constrained to
move horizontally. First, The first step in conducting the experiment was to determine the
coefficients of air drag and friction were determined experimentally. Next, tTrains with different
masses were then launched such thatuntil(?) such that theyeach train stopped at the same
location., This provideding specific launch velocities for each mass. Finally, this This data was
compared with the derived velocity equation to determine how accurately the equation predicts
the required stopping pointlaunch velocity of the roller coaster train. The qualitative results show
that as the mass of a train increases, the launch velocity must decrease in order for the train to
reach the same heightlocation. Unfortunately, However, the quantitative data had too much
uncertainty to be conclusive. This was due to the fact that because perfectly determining the
coefficients of friction and air drag separately was not achievable, resulting in an uncertainty of
±19%. between the equation and the experimental results.

Introduction

Top Thrill Dragster is the second tallest roller coaster in the world at 420ft. The ride

layout consists of a launch, vertical spike, top-hat, vertical dive and break run, and this entire

circuit takes only 17 seconds to complete. While riding Top Thrill Dragster, one may notice that

a train full of passengers has a less intense acceleration than a train with no passengers. Thus,

assuming the length of the launch track is the same for each launch, the low mass train requires a

greater post-launch velocity than a high mass train. The goal of this experiment was to test this

hypothesis.

To understand the theory behind this hypothesis, we will focus on the forces on the train

after the launch. Figure 1 describes the forces below.

𝐹𝑓
𝐹𝑑

𝐹𝑔
FIGURE 1: A free body diagram of the train after the launch. N is the normal
force, Fg is the force of gravity, Ff is the force of friction, and Fd is the force of
air drag.

The normal force and the force due to gravity are equal, and thus play no direct role in the

motion of the train. However, the force due to friction and the force due to air drag play

significant roles in decelerating the train. Equation (1) below gives the acceleration due to

friction, and equation (2) gives the acceleration due to air drag.
 𝑎𝑓 = μg (1)

𝑐
𝑎𝑑 = 𝑣2 (2)
𝑚

By using Newton’s Second Law and solving for acceleration, we find that the equation of motion

is described by equation (3) below.

𝑐
𝑎(𝑡) = − 𝑣(𝑡)2 − 𝜇𝑔 (3)
𝑚

Since velocity is equal to the first derivative of position, and acceleration is the second derivative

of position, this is a separable differential equation which can be solved for the position and

velocity of the train as a function of time. The solution for position is given in equation (4) and

the solution for velocity is given in equation (5) below,

𝑚 𝑐𝜇𝑔 𝑐 𝑚 𝑐
𝑥(𝑡) = ln [cos (√ 𝑡 − tan−1 (𝑣0 √ ))] − 𝑙𝑛 [𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝑣0 √ ))] (4)
𝑐 𝑚 𝜇𝑚𝑔 𝑐 𝜇𝑚𝑔

𝜇𝑚𝑔 𝑐𝜇𝑔 𝑐
𝑣(𝑡) = −√ tan (√ 𝑡 − tan−1 (𝑣0 √ )) (5)
𝑐 𝑚 𝜇𝑚𝑔

where 𝑣0 is the initial velocity. These equations describe the motion of the roller coaster train

with respect to time as affected by air drag and friction.

Apparatus Description

To test the hypothesis, a flat launch track was constructed out of K’nex. A two car train

was able to roll along the track. Weights could be attached to the top of the cars, and a wind

screen could be attached to the front car. Along the track were photogates to measure the

velocity as the train decelerated. A rubber band was attached to the structure and the train could

attach to the band, which would stretch back with the train and build potential energy. By pulling
the band back the same distance, its potential energy could be converted to a precise velocity

after the launch. See Figure 2 for a visual of the apparatus.

FIGURE 2: Experimental apparatus. The image on the left shows the launch
track, photogates, and train. The image on the right shows the wind screen,
weights, rubber band, ruler, and the flag that triggered the photogate.

In order to reduce errors during testing, a rubber band was used to replicate each launch

as much as possible. The flag on the train that triggered the photogates was only 4cm long to

minimize the change in velocity during the velocity measurement. When the train was launched

without a wind screen but with added mass, a mini wind screen of exactly the size of the

maximum number of weights was added in an attempt to make the air flow uniform between

trials. When the wind screen was added, a support was put in place to avoid bending of the

screen.

It is important to note that the apparatus used in this experiment differs from Top Thrill

Dragster because the experimental apparatus only used a flat track with no vertical component.

This was done to simplify the experiment, and I did this by assuming that air drag would not

change from the flat track to the vertical spike. Also, since acceleration due to friction and
gravity are both constant and mass independent, and since friction is only present in the flat

section and gravity is only present in the vertical section, these accelerations do not alter the

mathematical model, leaving the system relatively unchanged.

Experimental Procedure

The purpose of experiment one was to find the coefficient of friction for the roller coaster

trains. Since the function of the wheels is quite complicated given the friction between the

wheels and their axels, and between the wheels and the track, the coefficient friction value will

be an estimate of the overall total coefficient of friction. To obtain this value, trains with equal

masses and no wind screen were launched. The post launch velocity of the trains was increased

over a course of nine trials. The photogates documented velocity values during the deceleration

which were used in the calculations of the friction coefficient.

The purpose of experiment two was to find the coefficient of the air drag force. To obtain

this value, a train with a wind screen was launched with the same post launch velocity, but three

different masses were used. The velocity during the deceleration was used to calculate the air

drag coefficient, as explained in the results section.

The purpose of experiment three was to verify the hypothesis using the information

gained in the first two experiments. This is the main section of the experiment. In this

experiment, different mass trains, each with the wind screen attached, were launched in such a

way that each train stopped at the same final position on the track. The post launch velocity was

measured for each trial. To maximize accuracy, five trials were conducted for each of the five

masses, totaling to 25 trials. The data was used to observe how increasing the mass changed the

post launch velocity.

Experimental Results
 In experiment one, nine trials were conducted in which velocity measurements were

obtained throughout the deceleration of the train. For each trial, the velocities were graphed over

time, fitted with a linear best fit line, and the average acceleration was obtained from the slope of

the line. The mean acceleration was calculated from the average accelerations, and the answer

was multiplied by the 0.11kg mass to obtain the mean value for the friction coefficient. This data

is shown in Figure 3 below.

Experiment 1
Avg Mean Stand. Mean Stand. Relative
Trial Vel 1 Vel 2 Vel 3 Vel 4
Accel. Accel. Dev. mu Dev. Uncertainty
1 1.43 1.22 0.94 0.66 0.4
2 1.62 1.41 1.18 0.95 0.52
3 2.19 1.99 1.83 1.64 0.72
4 2.56 2.35 2.19 1.96 0.78
5 2.74 2.47 2.22 2.09 0.78 0.737 .228 0.0792 .0233 29.4%
6 2.94 2.68 2.45 2.3 0.81
7 3.28 3.1 2.9 2.67 0.864
8 3.81 3.54 3.28 3.31 0.868
9 4.76 4.44 4.26 4 0.894
FIGURE 3: The data table for experiment 1, used to calculate the average value
for the coefficient of friction. All velocities are measured in meters per second,
and all accelerations were measured in meters per second per second.

In experiment two, the mass of the train was changed, but the post launch velocity was

kept as constant as possible. Similar to in experiment one, the velocities measured by the

photogate were graphed over time, and a curve was fitted to the data. The equation of the line

was derived to obtain an equation for the acceleration. To obtain the value of the acceleration at

the first photogate (named “initial instantaneous acceleration” in the table), 0 seconds was
𝑎
plugged in for time. Then values were plugged into the equation 𝑐 = 𝑚 to find the coefficient
𝑣2

of air drag. Figure 4 shows the data collected in this experiment.

Experiment 2
Post Initial Relative
Stand.
Trial Mass Launch Instant. c Avg. c Uncertainty
Dev.
Velocity Accel.
1 0.15 2.16 1.21 0.0389
0.0652 .0194 29.8%
2 0.35 2.05 0.75 0.0625
 3 0.55 2.09 0.62 0.0781
4 0.75 2.19 0.52 0.0813
FIGURE 4: Data table for experiment two, used to calculate the drag coefficient.
All masses are measured in kilograms, all velocities are measured in meters per
second, and all accelerations were measured in meters per second per second.

In experiment three, trains were launched to the same final resting point. The data

obtained is shown in Figure 5 below, measured by a scale, photogate, or meter stick respectively.

Trial Mass V Initial Final X

1 0.15 2.124 3.074
2 0.35 1.524 3.086
3 0.55 1.296 3.106
4 0.75 1.198 3.082
5 0.95 1.176 3.122
FIGURE 5: Data table for experiment 3, used to support the hypothesis. A
relationship was found where the velocity decreases as mass increases. All
masses are measured in kilograms, all velocities are measured in meters per
second, and all positions are measured in meters.

The findings presented in Figure 5 show an important relationship. In trial one, a low mass train

required a large velocity to reach approximately the same distance as a train from trial two,

where a more massive train needed a smaller initial velocity. This trend continued through all

five trials. To make this trend easier to visualize, see the graph in Figure 6.
 Initial Velocity vs. Mass
2.5
Initial Velocity (m/s)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Mass (kg)

FIGURE 6: Graph of post launch velocity for different mass trains in experiment
3. As mass increased, the initial velocity required by the trains decreased.

Unfortunately, the error in this experiment was large. In experiment 1, while the

acceleration due to friction was expected to be a constant number throughout the trials, it actually

seemed to double when the velocity quadrupled. If this was caused by air resistance, we would

expect the opposite result; the acceleration would quadruple if the velocity doubled. Since this

was not case, there was not an obvious way of teasing out a value for the coefficients of friction

and drag at the same time. Thus, since acceleration due to friction was assumed to be constant,

the relative uncertainties in the standard deviation of both the coefficient of friction and the

coefficient of air drag were around 29% of the mean coefficients. That percentage is large, and

thus the values obtained for the coefficients are not precise. Finally, due to some unexplainable

cause in experiment three, the same train was launched with the same stretch in the rubber band,
yet it seemed to randomly stop anywhere within .6 meters of the target stopping point. To

account for this, only trials that actually landed on the desired stopping point were accepted.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of experiment 3 support the initial hypothesis which stated that a low mass

train required a greater post launch velocity than a high mass train. Even though the error

involved was large, the graph in Figure 6 shows a clear relationship in that the post launch

velocity decreases as the mass of the train increases. The implications of this are that during a

launch on Top Thrill Dragster, if there are no other riders, then the train will have less mass and

will require a greater velocity to reach the same height as a train full of riders. The reason for this

is in the equation for air resistance. The acceleration of a train due to air resistance is

proportional to the inverse of the mass of the train. Thus, if a train has a large mass, the

acceleration of the train caused by air resistance will be small. If that train were to reach the

same stopping point as a low mass train, it will require a lower post launch velocity because its

acceleration is smaller. On the other hand, the acceleration due to friction does not depend on the

mass of the train. Thus each train will have the same acceleration due to friction, regardless of

the mass, so friction has no effect on the relative stopping points of trains with different masses.

These results show the complications involved in engineering a roller coaster on a large

scale. The uncertainty in my experiment was enormous, and it was not possible to obtain an

accurate value for the coefficients of friction and air drag. Yet it is crucial for engineers to have

precise calculations of these values so that a Top Thrill Dragster train will crest the top with the

perfect speed every time, otherwise the ride will either not crest the top hat, or passengers will be

injured due to high negative G forces.

 The reasons for the large error in this experiment are uncertain. It is likely that the

uncertainty in the coefficients of friction and drag are due to the same cause of the seemingly

random stopping positions in experiment three. The cause of this could be changing wind

currents in the experiment room, however no vents or fans were found in the room and no air

current was detected.

To improve this experiment for the future, it is important to obtain a more precise number

for the coefficients of friction and drag, which may be linked to the fact that the train would stop

in different places along the track in experiment three. For future experiments, I suggest

mimicking the real roller coaster by first repeating experiment three on an angled launch track so

that a component of gravity is present. Then for best results, launch a train horizontally into a

vertical spike.

References

1. Dr. Rich Louie, Chair and Professor of Physics at Pacific Lutheran University.

2. Taylor, John. Classical Mechanics. University Science Books, 2005. Print.