Ramps are everywhere on a campus — wheelchair ramps, loading docks, hallway inclines, parking garage entrances — and not all of them were built with a careful eye toward friction. Somewhere near you, there's probably a ramp people already talk about being slippery, steep, or risky when wet.
You are acting as a student safety consultant. Choose a real ramp, document why it's worth investigating, measure it, and determine whether the physics actually supports a hazard concern — then propose a specific, buildable fix if it does.
Section 2 of 7
Choosing Your Site
A good site has a few things going for it:
You can safely measure it yourself, without needing special equipment or access
It has a noticeable slope — steep enough that friction and angle genuinely matter
Its surface is something you can test or reasonably estimate a coefficient of friction for
There's a real, specific reason someone might worry about it (existing wear marks, a known complaint, a slippery-when-wet material, etc.)
Section 3 of 7
Reference Data & Standards
Use these as reference points, not substitutes for your own measurements.
ADA max wheelchair ramp slope
1:12 ratio
≈ 4.8° — the legal maximum for new wheelchair ramps
Typical μs — clean concrete
0.5 – 0.7
dry conditions
Typical μs — painted metal
0.3 – 0.5
can drop significantly when wet
Typical μs — smooth rubber matting
0.6 – 0.9
common traction fix
Section 4 of 7
Constraints
⚠️ Your diagnosis and fix MUST satisfy all of these:
Your site must be a real, physically accessible ramp or incline you can measure yourself.
The ramp's angle must be measured directly (protractor, phone level app, or equivalent) — not assumed or estimated by eye.
Your coefficient of friction must come from an actual measurement or test on a comparable surface — not a guessed number.
Your hazard determination must be shown with the actual comparison: tanθ vs. μs, not just a verbal impression.
Any recommended fix must be realistic and buildable — no recommending demolishing and rebuilding fixed infrastructure — and must include a calculation showing the fix resolves the hazard.
Section 5 of 7
Deliverables
📤 Your site diagnosis report must include:
A description and photo or sketch of your chosen ramp, with its location
Your measured angle and your measured or estimated coefficient of friction, with your method explained
A clear force analysis (tanθ vs. μs comparison, plus a free-body diagram) showing whether a hazard actually exists
A specific, realistic recommended fix, with a calculation proving that fix would resolve the hazard
A short summary written for a non-physics reader — a facilities manager, not a physics teacher
Section 6 of 7
Work the Numbers
Use this tool to check your hazard determination, and to test whether a proposed fix would actually resolve it, before committing to a final recommendation.
Enter your site's measured angle and estimated μs. If tanθ exceeds μs, an object (or a person's foot) tends to slide — that's your hazard condition.
measured angle12°
measured μs0.35
tan(θ)
0.213
μs
0.350
✓ Currently stable — margin of 0.137
Real μs values are rarely known exactly — cite a source or a measurement method for whatever number you use in your actual report.
Section 7 of 7
Grading Rubric
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Incomplete
Site Documentation
Real, well-photographed site with a clear, specific reason it's worth investigating.
Real site documented; reason for concern is general.
Site unclear or documentation thin.
No real site identified.
Measurement Method
Angle and μs both directly measured, with method clearly explained.
Both measured; method described briefly.
One value measured, one assumed.
Values assumed or missing.
Physics Reasoning
Correct tanθ vs. μs comparison with a clear, correctly-drawn free-body diagram.
Correct comparison; diagram present but minor issues.
Comparison attempted with errors, or diagram missing.
No clear force analysis shown.
Recommended Fix
Specific, realistic fix with a calculation proving it resolves the hazard.
Realistic fix given; calculation present but incomplete.
Fix suggested without supporting calculation.
No fix proposed, or fix is unrealistic.
Communication
Clear, jargon-free summary a facilities manager could act on directly.
Mostly clear; some physics jargon remains.
Difficult to follow without physics background.
Report format not followed.
📤 Turn In
Site diagnosis report with photo/sketch, measurements, and force analysis
Recommended fix with a supporting calculation
Free-body diagram of the object or pedestrian on the ramp