Measuring Coefcients of Friction for Materials

Commonly Used in Theatre

by Verda Beth Martell, Eric C. Martell, Brendan Bernacki,
and Robert Mentzer
Published in TD&T, Vol. 44 No. 1 (Winter 2008)
Theatre Design & Technology, the journal for design and production
professionals in the performing arts and entertainment industry, is published
four times a year by United States Institute for Theatre Technology. For
information about joining USITT or to purchase back issues of TD&T, please
contact the USITT ofce:
USITT
315 South Crouse Ave., Suite 200
Syracuse, NY 13210
tel: 800-93-USITT (800-938-7488)
tel: 315-463-6463
fax: 315-463-6525
e-mail: info@ofce.usitt.org
web: www.usitt.org

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F

MEASURING
coefficients of friction for
MATERIALS
commonly used in

THEATRE

By Verda Beth Martell, Eric C. Martell, Brendan Bernacki, and Robert Mentzer

A ny time you slide, or try to slide, one thing

against another, you have to overcome friction.

When trying to figure out how big the effect of friction is,
known as the frictional force, we need to know two things:
1) how hard the things are pushing against each other, which
will depend on the exact situation were dealing with, and
2) the coefficients of friction for the combination of materials involved, which tell us essentially how rough the surfaces are and how difficult it is to slide one against another.
Whether the friction comes from an ultra-high molecular
weight polyethylene (UHMW) guide running along a steel
rigging T-track, a small medium density fiberboard (MDF)
turntable spinning on an MDF base, a plywood drawer sliding on pine tracks, or any number of other applications,
there are coefficients of friction for each material combination (steel-UHMW, MDF-MDF, plywood-pine). For combinations of materials used frequently in industrial applications
like steel-UHMW, steel-steel, Teflon-steel, rubber-concrete,
and countless others, the coefficients of friction are wellknown and can be found by typing coefficients of friction

10

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

W I N T E R

2008

into an Internet search engine. Coefficients of friction for

material combinations that are common to theatre, however, are not widely known.
Why do we care? To accurately calculate drive force (and
eventually power) for a motor-driven system, you need to know
all of the other forces in the system, including the frictional
force. Knowing the drive force can save you time, money, and
frustration. Ten minutes with a calculator can save you the time
of testing and replacing drives. Short calculations can open
your eyes to the capacities of smaller/cheaper drives. Maybe
most importantly, a little practice and you can save a sleepless
night or two before load-in, because you will know the motor
can handle the load.

THE TEST MATERIALS

Friction is the interaction of at least two materials (a skidding
rubber tire and an asphalt road or furniture glides and the
oor) as well as any surface treatments or lubrication (whether
or not the oor is painted or bare, for example). Consequently,
we must measure the coefcients between two materials, in our
case a base material (the lid of the test stage) and a skid mate-

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F
Figure 2. Velocity/Time Graph
of a typical trapezoidal move.
Section A is the acceleration.
During Section B the object
travels at a constant velocity.
Section C is deceleration.

Figure 1. Photo of hardboard skid from preliminary tests.

rial (the bottom of the skid). We chose a selection of the most

common materials used for scenic construction. Our base materials were UHMW, MDF, painted MDF, glazed lauan, painted
hardboard, and painted and sealed hardboard.Our skids were
UHMW, MDF, steel, lauan, oak, poplar, and pine. We included
oak because of its possible use in low prole skids and tracks.
In the data presented here, if there is no surface treatment listed
then the material was used rawno paint, sealer, wax, ame
retardant, or treatment of any kind other than a ne sanding to
knock down the edges. For the purpose of this article, glazing
is a thinned latex paint that, when applied, highlights the natural grain in the material. Glazing is absorbed into the surface
rather than coating the surface. Painted surfaces were rolled
with a latex paint thick enough to completely coat the surface
and, where applicable, to obscure the grain. Sealed surfaces
were rolled with a water-based Varathane for Floors (polyurethane) that had been diluted 1:1. Lauan skids were run both
with and against the grain to show the effect of the grain on the
friction in the system. All other wood materials were run with
the grain only.

THE FINAL TEST STAGE Technical Data and Set-up

To gain the most accurate information in the nal testing we ran
each material combination through 100 iterations of a simple
trapezoidal move: starting from rest, accelerate at a constant
rate to a set velocity, run at that constant velocity, and then
decelerate to a stop (g. 2). The skid was driven by a continuous chain loop that attached to the front and back of the
skid through two Cooper Instruments model LFS 260-100 load
cells, which are electrical devices used for measuring forces. A
load cell generates an electrical signal that corresponds to the
tension in the cell. In our case, those tensions were recorded
throughout each move using National Instruments LabVIEW, a
software package commonly used in scientic research and industrial applications as well as a motor control system used by
one of the authors. We were able to use this software for both
motor control and data acquisition, essentially automating the
whole process.
Figure 3. Setting up the nal test
stage and conguring the control
system.

PRELIMINARY TESTING
Starting in June 2005, thanks to a grant from the United States
Institute for Theatre Technology (USITT), we set out to measure
coefcients of friction for some of the most common theatrical
materials. As a rst step, we conducted some preliminary tests
of our equipment, methodology, and materials before beginning the nal (and more extensive) phase of testing.
The preliminary testing included two additional materials
that were eliminated from the nal testing. In the course of the
preliminary tests we discovered that both raw hardboard (Masonite) and aluminum were poor skid materials. The surface
of the unpainted, double-tempered hardboard we used began
to break down early in the testing process becoming unusable
before the testing could be nished. It deteriorated both as a
base material and as a skid material (g. 1). Aluminum did not
make a good skid surface when combined with any wood product. The aluminum tended to leave tracks of grime on these
surfaces which increased the friction as the test progressed.
Consequently, we do not recommend aluminum or raw hardboard for skid applications and did not test them further.

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

Figure 4. Force/time graph of actual test data. The peak at point 1 is proportional to the static
frictional force and is the last data point before the skid begins to move. The kinetic frictional force
is the average of the data points between 2 and 3 where the skid is traveling at a constant velocity.

W I N T E R

2008

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

11

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F
Starting from rest, the tension in the cable was slowly increased until the skid started to move. The reading on the load
cell at the moment just prior to movement gave us the static
frictional force (for a more detailed discussion of physics
terms, see the section The Test Process, below). Once the
skid was moving, we waited for the drive to level off the velocity
so that there was no acceleration. In this case, the reading on
the load cell gave us the kinetic frictional force.
Because the new system incorporated a continuous chain,
some care had to be taken to ensure that we were recording not
only the force it took to get the skid moving, but also any resisting force caused by the chain. Consequently, the stage had two
load cellsone to record the pulling force on the front end of
the skid and one to record the cable tension pulling backward.
The latter can be subtracted from the former to nd the net pull
force. This will be discussed in detail in the section The Test Process.
The tension data provided by the load cells was processed
through a signal conditioner (National Instruments SCC SG24
module in a National Instruments SC 2345 chassis) that signicantly reduces electrical signal noise and then acquired on
a personal computer via a National Instruments PCI 6221 DAQ
card. Once all the tensions were collected, Microsoft Excel was
used to analyze the data and compile nal results. The macro
creation feature in Excel made this process much quicker.

sured in pounds) and g = 32.2 ft/s 2 is the acceleration of gravity. In this case, it includes the weight of the skid and everything
on the skid.
F N The normal force is the force of the platform pushing
up on the skid. There is no generic formula for the size of the
normal force. It must be determined using Newtons laws of
motion (well see how to do this below).
F T, 1 and F T, 2 The tensions in the chain pulling in the
direction of motion (F T, 1) and opposing the motion (F T, 2).
Like normal forces, there is no basic tension formula. In this case,
these forces were measured using load cells during these tests.
F fr, s and F fr, k The static and kinetic frictional forces.
When the skid is stationary, we use the static frictional force;
and when its moving, we use the kinetic. In equations, the coefcient of friction is represented by the Greek letter , pronounced mew. The magnitude of the static frictional force is
Ffr, s s FN (its as big as it needs to be to prevent motion, up
to a maximum allowed value) and the magnitude of the kinetic
frictional force is Ffr, k = k FN . For the static case, the easiest
point at which to take data is when its at a maximum, so for our
tests, Ffr, s = s FN . In these equations, s is the coefcient of
static friction and k is the coefcient of kinetic frictionthe
things were trying to nd! Solving these equations for , we get:

and

THE TEST PROCESS

When analyzing a problem using forces, the most direct approach is to use Newtons laws of motion. Most important to
this case is the second law, which states that the sum of forces
(the net force) acting on an object is equal to its mass times
its acceleration (symbolically: F net = ma ). We designed the
experiment so that we would be collecting data only when the acceleration was zero (either before the skid started movingthe
static case, or when the skid was moving at a constant speed
the kinetic case). In both of these cases, Newtons second law
of motion says that the sum of all the forces acting on our skid,
F net , has to add up to zero, which makes the analysis simpler.
The rst step is to identify the forces present in the system.
As seen in gure 5, the test skid feels ve forces:
F g More commonly known as weight, the magnitude
(size) of the force of gravity is given by Fg = mg, where m is
the mass of the object (measured in slugs, if forces are mea

Figure 5. Free body diagram showing forces on skid during nal test.

12

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

W I N T E R

2008

When we add these forces, we cannot just add them as if

they are regular numbers. Forces are vectorsit matters how
big a force is, but it also matters which way it points. Two people applying forces of 100 lbs in the same direction will produce a much different result than the same two people pulling
in opposite directions. The way we deal with this is to break the
vectors into componentshow much of the force lies along
the x-axis, and how much lies along the y-axis. When we do
this, we get two equations, Fnet, y = 0 (the sum of the forces in
the vertical direction is zero) and Fnet, x = 0 (the sum of the
forces in the horizontal direction is zero). In general, this can
get complicated, but in this case, where all of the forces are
either horizontal or vertical, its not that bad.
Vertical Components. From gure 2 we can see
that F N and F g are the only vertical forces, so when we add
them together (recalling that the acceleration is zero), we get
Fnet, y = FN Fg = 0.
Note that we have to be careful about directionthe
vertical component of the normal force is positive because it
points upward and the vertical component of gravity is negative
because it points downward. Solving this equation, we nd that
FN = Fg, or in other words, the magnitude of the normal force
is equal to the total weight of the skid.
Horizontal Components. In the horizontal direction, there are three forcesthe two tensions and

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F
friction (either static or kinetic friction, depending on
whether or not the skid is moving). In the static case, we get
Fnet, x = 0 = FT, 1 FT, 2 Ffr, s .
Were again taking direction into account. F T, 1 is pulling in
the positive direction and F T, 2 and F fr, s point in the opposite
(negative) direction. The kinetic case is similarjust replace
the s for static friction with a k. Solving this equation, we
get Ffr, s = FT, 1 FT, 2 for when the skid is stationary and Ffr, k
= FT, 1 FT, 2 when the skid is moving.
Using these equations, along with the equation for the
magnitude of the frictional forces given above, we can put everything together to nd equations for the coefcients of static
and kinetic friction. We nd that

Figure 6a. Coefcients of

friction on UHMW.

for both the static and kinetic cases. FT, 1 and FT, 2 were measured using our load cells, and FN was equal to the weight of
the skid (and everything on top of it).

A NOTE ON EXPERIMENTAL UNCERTAINTY

Any time you take data in an experiment, there is some uncertainty associated with each measurement. This isnt because of
any mistakes that you might make (although you do need to
watch out for those) but because of minor variations in materials, the limitations of your equipment, and other random
factors over which you have no control. For example, if youre
making measurements with a ruler, you cant measure any
more accurately than the smallest divisions on your ruler, and
if youre trying to be that precise, any minor variation in where
you place the end of the ruler or how you read it (the angle
of your head, etc.) will affect your measurements. This is why
we dont just make one measurement, but, in this case, one
hundred, so that we can average out these uncertainties. In the
tables at right, we also include an estimate of our uncertainties (determined by taking the standard deviation of each set
of measurements). What this means is that if a coefficient of
friction is reported as 0.25 0.04, it should be treated as
being somewhere in between 0.21 and 0.29, and you should
take that range into consideration in any calculations you
perform.

Figure 6b. Coefcients of

friction on painted MDF.

Figure 6c. Coefcients of

friction on MDF.

Figure 6d. Coefcients of

friction on glazed lauan.

Figure 6e. Coefcients of

friction on painted hardboard.

THE DATA
In the tables at right, the top line indicates the base material
for that group of tests. The rst column lists the skid materials
used, the second, the coefcients of static friction (including
experimental uncertainty), and the third, the coefcients of kinetic friction (again including experimental uncertainty).

Figure 6f. Coefcients of

friction on painted and sealed
hardboard.

USING THIS DATA

Before using this data, there are a few things to take into
consideration:

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

W I N T E R

2008

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

13

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F
Although many of our results had uncertainties of 0.02
or 0.03, we recommend that you use a value of at least
0.05 in your calculations. Minor variations in material
composition (especially for systems made from natural
materials, such as oak or lauan) can be signicant. In
general, you should use the maximum possible friction
that you would have to overcome, both for safety reasons
and to make sure that your system can actually do what
you want it to do. For example, you should use the
coefcient of static friction when determining motor size
and then assume an uncertainty of 0.05, which would give
s = 0.26 + 0.05 = 0.31.
Painted hardboard is included in the data, despite the poor
performance of raw hardboard in the preliminary tests,
since hardboard is a common ooring material. The
painted surface held up signicantly better than its raw
counterpart, but we still do not recommend hardboard
for use in skids or other circumstances where friction
is an issue. We include the nding for reference only
and suspect that any damage to the surface will cause
shredding to recur.
Just because the base material needs to look good onstage
does not mean that you have to use the same material for
the whole move. You may have the opportunity to use a
different material when the skid starts to move than when
it is at speed. For example, if the skid started off stage,
out of sight, you could start the move on raw MDF or
UHMW then, as you reached the sightline, change the oor
material to something more aesthetically pleasing. In that
case, it is best to consider the motion as comprised of
three piecesthe rst at the start of the move overcoming
static friction, then while moving on the rst material,
subject to kinetic friction, and lastly on the second
material combination, again with kinetic friction. You
should perform the same three calculations for the return
move. (A longer acceleration time or lower velocity for
resetting will help you keep your motor size down). Use
the highest of these results to determine horsepower.
Considerations beyond the coefcient of friction should be
factored in when choosing skid materials. Wood products
vary widely in quality from one region to another. You may
have to do some preliminary tests to make sure that your
particular material can withstand repeated moves.
We were startled by the exceptional performance of MDF
in these tests. We had no prior evidence that MDF skids
work well, although, due to its performance in these tests,
we will be experimenting with MDF in the future for these
applications.
UHMW is an industrial material that has very consistent
properties from sample to sample, stores well, and is durable
for repeated use. Although this material is more expensive

14

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

W I N T E R

2008

than MDF and, in some cases, has higher values, we

believe that it is the best material for skid runners. To
cut down on the cost, you can use UHMW strips rather
than a single sheetthe frictional force is independent
of surface area. This can be explained by looking at what
causes friction, namely the interaction between molecules
in the surfaces of the two materials, an interaction which
is dependent on how hard those surfaces are pushed
together (the normal force). If the contact area is large,
the force pushing the surfaces together is dispersed,
causing a lower pressure. If you have a smaller contact
area, the pressure goes up. Since force is equal to the
pressure times the area, the relationship between these
properties cancels, except in extreme cases, such as trying
to drag something on an edge. Note: You will need to use
strips that fully support the surface. The surface material
should not sag or deect noticeably between strips.
In all of these tests the skid materials were attached with
fasteners that were carefully countersunk. Screw heads
and other fasteners must not protrude from either the skid
or the base material surface. Additionally, skid runners
were rounded off on the leading edge.

AN EXAMPLE
As an example of how to apply this information, consider the
following situation: A skid, lined on the bottom with UHMW
strips, is moved across a horizontal glazed lauan platform. It
weighs 400 lbs, moves at a speed of 6 ft/s, and has 4 s to get
up to speed. How powerful a motor do you need to accomplish
the task?
The motor has to accomplish two tasks: get the skid moving,
and move it fast enough to travel the necessary distance.
In the rst case, the skid is stationary, which means that it is
subject to the static frictional force (see figure 7). In
this case, F net = 0, so Fnet, y = FN Fg = 0 and Fnet, x
= FT Ffr, s = 0. Rearranging, we then get FN = Fg and
FT = Ffr, s . Substituting into the denition of the static
frictional force (Ffr, s = s FN) given earlier, we get FT
= s Fg. The coefcient of static friction between UHMW
and glazed lauan is 0.24 0.02. As mentioned above, we
will use 0.24 + 0.05 = 0.29, and thus nd that we need to
apply a drive force of FT = 0.29 400 lbs = 116 lbs.

Figure 7. Free body diagram showing forces on skid in example.

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

FT F Fg F FT Fg F Ffr F F FN Fg F F FT Ffr FN F
In the second case, the acceleration is no longer zero. To nd
a, we can use the kinematic equations of motion found in
any standard introductory physics textbook, specically
v = at, where v is the speed you would like to reach
and t is the time it takes to get up to that speed. Plugging
in v = 6 ft/s and t = 4s, we nd a = 1.5 ft/s 2. Nothing
changes in the vertical direction, but horizontally, we now
have Fnet,x = FT Ffr, k , or (doing a little substitution)
FT = k Fg + ma. The mass m can be found from the
denition of the force of gravity Fg = mg, which gives
m = 400 lbs/32.2 ft/s 2 = 12.4 slug. Finally, using k =
0.22+0.05=0.27, we nd that we need drive force of
FT = 0.27 400 lbs + 12.4 slug 1.5 ft/s 2 = 126.6 lbs to
accelerate the skid.
Since the second number is larger, we then use
it to calculate horsepower.
,

(UIUC), The Department of Theatre at UIUC, and the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Millikin University (MU).
The Technical Production Commission of USITT recognizes
the Physics of Theatre Project as an ofcial project of the Institute. Additional information about the Physics of Theatre
Project can be found at http://www2.kcpa.uiuc.edu/kcpatd/
physics/index.htm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Brian Morgan (UIUC Theatre) and
Richard Bearce (MU Physics) for their assistance at various
stages of this project. We would also like to acknowledge
Tracy and Gabe Nunnally of Northern Illinois University for
the loan of equipment and Fritz Schwentker for introducing
us to the National Instruments software. This work is supported in part by grants from USITT, the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, and Millikin University.

we nd that we need a motor of at least 1.38 HP to

accomplish the task.
In reality, drive systems incorporate a mechanical reducer
that is not 100% efcient. The reducer efciency can be
found on a plate mounted to the housing. To incorporate
the efciency of your reducer convert the percentage to a
decimal and divide the HP by that number. For instance,
if your reducer is rated at 80% efciency then you would
need 1.725 HP to make this move. Therefore, a 2 HP
motor would be sufcient and give you a little headroom
should you need a faster acceleration or velocity.
For more examples and further explanation of these
calculations go to www2.kcpa.uiuc.edu/kcpatd/physics/
index.htm and look for lectures on horizontal motion in
the section labeled In Classes.

Verda Beth Martell is the Opera Technical Director

for Krannert Center for the Performing Arts at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is
Vice-Commissioner of Automation for the Technical
Production Commission of USITT and serves on the Board
for the Midwest Section of USITT.

FUTURE TESTING

Editors Note: This article is published under the

guidelines of TD&Ts juried submission process. It has
undergone blind peer review and has been judged to meet
the highest standards of scholarly writing. Juried article
submission guidelines are available on the TD&T Web
site, www.usittorg/tdt.index/.

This spring we will roll out the next phase of testing: casters.
Students at Millikin University will measure the coefcients of
rolling friction for different hardnesses of casters. They will
also study the deformation of the casters under weight to see
if the casters develop at spots that impede motion and how
quickly those at spots reform to the surface when rolling.
We know that it takes more force to get something rolling
than it does to keep it rolling. Some of that difference is inertia and some is in overcoming the at spot on the wheel.
We want to measure that difference as well as other effects
caused by wheel deformation.

Eric C. Martell, PhD, is the chair of the Department of

Physics and Astronomy at Millikin University in Decatur, IL.
Brendan Bernacki nished his MFA at UIUC in 2006. He
currently works as a technical designer for PRGNew York.
Robert Mentzer is a senior physics and applied
mathematics major at Millikin University.

THE PHYSICS OF THEATRE PROJECT

Friction testing is a part of the Physics of Theatre Projecta
joint effort between the Krannert Center for the Performing
Arts (KCPA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Copyright 2008 United States Institute for Theatre Technology, Inc.

W I N T E R

2008

THEATRE

DESIGN

&

TECHNOLOGY

15