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

net/publication/12970441

Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics:

Derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for
binding

Article  in  The European Journal of Orthodontics · May 1999

DOI: 10.1093/ejo/21.2.199 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
197 2,268

2 authors, including:

John Q Whitley
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
61 PUBLICATIONS   2,421 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Q Whitley on 03 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Orthodontics 21 (1999) 199–208  1999 European Orthodontic Society

Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding

mechanics: derivations and determinations of the critical
contact angles for binding
Robert P. Kusy and John Q. Whitley
Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, USA

SUMMARY There is every indication that classical friction controls sliding mechanics below
some critical contact angle, θc. Once that angle is exceeded, however, binding and notching
phenomena increasingly restrict sliding mechanics. Using geometric archwire and bracket
parameters, the θc is calculated as the boundary between classical frictional behaviour and
binding-related phenomena. What these equations predict is independent of practitioner or
technique. From these derivations two dimensionless numbers are also identified as the
bracket and the engagement index. The first shows how the width of a bracket compares
to its Slot; the second indicates how completely the wire fills the Slot. When nominal wire
and bracket dimensions are calculated for both standard Slots, the maximum θc theoretically
equals 3.7 degrees. Thus, knowledge of the archwire or bracket alone is insufficient; knowledge
of the archwire-bracket combination is necessary for θc to be calculated. Once calculated,
sliding mechanics should be initiated only after the contact angle, θ, approaches the
characteristic value of θc for the particular archwire-bracket combination of choice—that is,
when θ ≈ θc.

Introduction
In the passive configuration (Kusy and Whitley,
Recently, Kusy and Whitley (1997) stated that 1997), where the contact angle (θ) (Proffit, 1993)
the resistance to sliding (RS) may be partitioned between archwire and bracket Slot is less than
into three components: classical friction (FR), some critical contact angle (θc), only classical
binding (BI), and notching (NO): friction is important because binding (Frank and
Nikolai, 1980; Kapila et al., 1990) and notching
RS = FR + BI + NO. (1)
(Hansen et al., 1998) are non-existent. That is,
Over 20 years ago, classical friction (FR) was
RS = PL + IN + SH = FR. (4)
further subdivided into ploughing (PL),
roughness interlocking (IN), and shearing (SH) Over the last 10 years the orthodontic literature
components (Jastrzebski, 1976): has documented classical friction in various
archwire-bracket combinations as a function of
FR = PL + IN + SH. (2)
archwire-bracket materials (Angolkar et al.,
When these concepts are combined, equations 1990; Kapila et al., 1990; Kusy and Whitley,
(1) and (2) constitute the general expression of 1990a; Pratten et al., 1990; Tselepis et al., 1994),
resistance to sliding, physical dimensions (Frank and Nikolai, 1980;
Tidy, 1989; Kusy et al., 1991), surface roughness
RS = PL + IN + SH + BI + NO, (3)
(Kusy and Whitley, 1990a,b; Prososki et al.,
which is applicable to both the passive and active 1991), fluid medium (Tidy, 1989; Saunders and
configurations. Kusy, 1994; Kusy and Schafer, 1995), and surface
200 R . P. K U S Y A N D J. Q. W H I T L E Y

modification (Kusy et al., 1992, 1997; Saunders relationships (Kusy and Whitley, 1997), little is
and Kusy, 1993). In addition, Nanda and Ghosh known about the nature of θc, and specifically
(1997) have recently presented a thorough review when it occurs and how it is influenced. In this
of the subject. investigation two theoretical equations are first
Although passive configuration has been exten- derived so that the practical means and bounds
sively researched, the active configuration (Kusy of θc may be determined in terms of the nominal
and Whitley, 1997) has received considerably less archwire-bracket parameters. These results show
attention, primarily because of the experimental that sliding mechanics will become increasingly
difficulties associated with measuring θ at angles difficult, when θc exceeds a specific value that
greater than 0 degrees. What is at least implicitly can be determined by geometric parameters.
known (Peterson et al., 1982) is that binding That maximum value never exceeds θc ≈ 4
increasingly plays a role as θ increases. In this degrees, regardless of the archwire-bracket
regard it is believed that three stages exist: couple, wire technique, or practitioner involved,
or else binding will increasingly restrict sliding
1. In the early stage, when θ either just equals or [cf. equations (5) and (6)] until sliding stops
just exceeds θc (i.e. θ ≥ θc), classical friction altogether [cf. equation (7)]. In the final analysis,
and binding solely contribute to the resistance this maximum value may be modified into a
to sliding so that equation (3) reduces to, simple, practical equation.
RS = PL + IN + SH + BI = FR + BI. (5)
Theoretical determinations
Under these circumstances sliding is
somewhat impeded, although neither classical The underlining premise is that sliding
friction nor binding dominates the other and principally occurs in the passive configuration
notching is negligible. (Figure 1, top), that is, when the effective
2. In the intermediate stage, when θ is clearly archwire size (‘Size’) is less than the bracket Slot
greater than θc (i.e. θ > θc), binding increasingly (‘Slot’). This premise may be mathematically
restricts sliding as classical friction becomes defined by the clearance (‘Delta’) as,
only a small part of binding (i.e. BI >> FR).
Delta = Slot – Size > 0.
Thus, equation (5) reduces to,
At the instant when the angulation (or for
RS ≈ BI (6)
that matter, the torque) makes the archwire
3. In the late stage, when θ is much greater than effectively fill the Slot,
θc (θ >> θc), both classical friction and binding
Delta = Slot – Size = 0,
become negligible relative to notching (i.e.
NO >> BI >> FR). As a consequence, sliding binding is imminent as the critical contact angle
is impossible, as this special case of binding (θc) has been achieved. This active configuration
makes RS approach infinity. Thus, equation (Figure 1, bottom) is a function of only one
(3) simplifies to, other parameter, the bracket width (‘Width’).
By manipulating Slot, Size, and Width, the θc
RS ≈ NO ≈ ∞. (7)
beyond which binding will increasingly obstruct
From the preceding three stages that exist in sliding mechanics can be written as (cf.
the active configuration, three topical areas Appendix I):
may be identified: the binding phenomenon, the
notching phenomenon, and the critical contact (Size)2 – (Width)2
θc = cos–1 . (AI9)
angle. Although binding has been formalized in (Size)(Slot) ± ((Width)2 (–(Size)2
terms of a superposition principle (Articolo and + (Slot)2 + (Width)2))0.5
Kusy, 1997) and notching is under investigation
both from the viewpoint of cataloguing its Although readily manageable with today’s high
morphological features and identifying its causal speed computers, nonetheless, the physical
C R I T I CA L C O N TAC T A N G L E S F O R B I N D I N G 201

Figure 2 Determination of theoretical values of bracket

index-engagement index plots at discrete values of θc (cf.
equations AI9 and AII3, and Appendices I and II,
respectively). These lines represent the linear regressions of
Figure 1 Schematic illustrations of an archwire-bracket compiled data that were obtained from θc = 0 degrees to
couple: in the passive configuration, when θ < θc (top)—that θc = 12 degrees at 1 degree increments. Note that although
is, when the contact angle (θ) is less than the critical contact the slopes of successive lines vary by a constant increment
angle (θc) as a result of angulation; and in the active of –0.0175, the intercepts depart more from 1.0 as θc
configuration, when θ ≥ θc (bottom). Together these increases from 0 degrees to 12 degrees.
illustrations define the three geometric parameters of
importance (Size, Slot, and Width), the wire-bracket
clearance (Delta = Slot – Size), and the relationship of θ
to θc. Equation (AII3) also indicates how the data
should be plotted. Recalling the formula for a
straight line, Y = mX + b, the following
interpretation of this equation is difficult to characteristics should be plotted:
comprehend. For example, how should the
computations be plotted, and what practical 1. On the X-axis plot, the bracket index as the
dimensionless indices should be considered? Width/Slot.
These answers can be obtained if an equivalent 2. On the Y-axis plot, the engagement index as
theoretical expression for θc is derived as (cf. the Size/Slot.
Appendix II):
When these indices are plotted, the slope and
intercept of each line will equal –sin θc and cos θc,
Size Width
= – (sin θc) + cos θc. (AII3) respectively [cf. equation (AII3)]. When plotted,
Slot Slot the exact solution of equation (AI9) via computer
appears as shown in Figure 2.
In equation (AII3) the Size/Slot defines the
engagement index as the ratio of the archwire
Practical determinations
size to the bracket Slot. This index defines
the fraction of the bracket Slot that is filled by Although mathematically exact, the boundaries
the archwire (Figure 1, top). Equation (AII3) of 0–16 for the bracket indices and 0–1.0 for the
also defines a second index, the bracket engagement indices exceed today’s practical
index. This equals the ratio of Width/Slot, or limits. Reference to nominal parameters in units
equivalently, the number of times that the of one thousandth of an inch called mils (Table 1)
bracket is wider than its Slot dimension (Figure indicate that the Widths can vary from 250 mils
1, top). Together, these dimensionless indices for 1’s, the central incisors to close diastemas, to
define all that is necessary to determine θc as the 125 mils for canines and premolars to close
point at which binding initiates. extraction sites. The Sizes can vary from 14, 16,
202 R . P. K U S Y A N D J. Q. W H I T L E Y

Table 1 Nominal parameters of archwires and Using the same approach, the maxima and
brackets that are used in sliding mechanics. minima of the engagement indices must be
calculated as follows (Table 1):
For an 18 Slot × 1000 (′′)* For a 22 Slot × 1000 (′′)
(0.46)** (0.56)
1. For the maximum engagement index, the
largest archwire Size and the smallest
Width 125 or 250 125 or 250
(3.18 or 6.35) (3.18 or 6.35)
bracket Slot must be one of two practical
Size 14† 14
combinations—either a 16/18 = 0.89 or a 19/22
(0.36) (0.36) = 0.86.
16‡ 16‡ 2. For the minimum engagement index the
(0.41) (0.41) smallest Size and the largest Slot must equal a
16 × 16‡ 18‡ 14/22 = 0.64.
(0.41 × 0.41) (0.46)
16 × 22‡ 16 × 16‡ On this basis the engagement indices need only
(0.41 × 0.56) (0.41 × 0.41)
range from 0.6 to 0.9, although 0.5 to 1.0 will be
16 × 22‡
(0.41 × 0.56) shown. Note that the range is extended in case a
17 × 25 practitioner wishes to use a wire that fills the Slot
(0.43 × 0.64) (e.g. an 18 × 25 Size in an 18 Slot for a Size/
18 × 25 Slot = 18/18 = 1.0) or to use an archwire that is
(0.46 × 0.64) smaller than a 14 (e.g. a 12 Size in a 22 Slot for a
19 × 25 Size/Slot = 12/22 = 0.55).
(0.48 × 0.64)
When the nominal parameters of archwires
and brackets, which are used in sliding mechanics,
*Expressed in mils.
**Equivalent value expressed in mm.
are now superimposed onto the upper right-hand
†
Questionable to slide on. quadrant of the theoretical plot (cf. Figure 2),
‡
Most popular to slide on. Figure 3 results. Note that only four discrete
bracket indices are indicated having Width/Slot
ratios of 125/22, 125/18, 250/22, and 250/18. Also
16 × 16, and 16 × 22 mils for both Slots and also note that seven engagement indices exist: two
include the 17 × 25, 18, 18 × 25, and 19 × 25 mils Size/Slot ratios for the 18 Slot (14/18 and 16/18)
for the 22 mils Slot. Note that, from this point and five Size/Slot ratios for the 22 Slot (14/22,
forward, the unit of mils will be implicitly under- 16/22, 17/22, 18/22, and 19/22). Associating
stood in the text, although the equivalent mm only either the 18 Slot or 22 Slot data, the 14
values may also be referenced from Table 1. points represent the current practical sliding
To determine the practical boundaries of the combinations, and the connecting lines show
theoretical plot (cf. Figure 2), the maxima and how θc will change as the bracket Width increases
minima of the bracket indices must be calculated from 125 to 250. Recalling that a higher value of
as follows (Table 1): θc means that sliding will occur despite more
misalignment, three important observations may
1. For the maximum bracket index, the largest be gleaned from the practical plot of Figure 3,
bracket Width and the smallest bracket while maintaining everything else equal:
Slot must be chosen. In principle, that is a
250/18 = 13.9. 1. Narrower bracket Widths at least double the
2. For the minimum bracket index, the smallest values of θcs. This benefit is countered by
Width and the largest Slot must be chosen. the long-standing observation that narrower
That is a 125/22 = 5.7. brackets are harder to control than wider
ones.
On this basis the bracket indices may range from 2. Smaller bracket Slots require that the
5 to 14. clinician be as much as 25 per cent more
C R I T I CA L C O N TAC T A N G L E S F O R B I N D I N G 203

Figure 3 Computations of nominal values of bracket Figure 4 Determination of practical values of bracket-
index-engagement index plots (•—•) superimposed on engagement index plots (and its associated bracket-
the discrete values of θc (cf. equations (AI9) & (AII3) and clearance index plots) at discrete values of θc (cf. equation
Appendices I & II, respectively). Each datum (•) AIII5 and Appendix III). Use this plot to determine θc for
corresponds to a particular bracket Width to bracket Slot each archwire-bracket combination.
ratio (i.e. the bracket index); whereas, the interconnecting
horizontal lines (—) represent a particular archwire Size to
bracket Slot ratio (i.e. the engagement index). Based on
these nominal values, the maximum θc is always ≤3.7
degrees. In the final analysis the theoretical require-
ment to align and level to within about 4 degrees
prior to sliding enables equation (AII3) to be
precise in initial alignment and levelling or simplified without any clinically significant
else binding will occur. This outcome suggests loss of accuracy. Using the approximations that
that inexperienced clinicians will find the 22 sin θc ≈ π θc/180 and cos θc ≈ 1, substitution
Slot more suitable for sliding mechanics. of these quantities into equation (AII3) and
3. Smaller wire Sizes can substantially facilitate rearrangement yields the simple, practical
the initiation of sliding mechanics. For equation (cf. Appendix III),
example, for a 16 Size wire in a bracket having
a 22 Slot and an 125 Width, the θc = 2.8 57.32 [1 – (Size/Slot)]
θc = . (AIII5)
degrees. This 16/22 engagement index should (Width/Slot)
be contrasted with the 16/18 engagement
index wherein θc = 0.9 degrees. Although both Now θc can be expressed as the product of a
the bracket Width and wire Size are identical, constant times one minus the engagement index
the 22 Slot allows θc to be three times as large (i.e. the clearance index—the fraction of the
as that of the 18 Slot. bracket Slot that is not filled by the archwire)
divided by the bracket index. For convenience,
To summarize Figure 3, even in the best case equation (AIII5) is plotted in Figure 4 using
scenario the practitioner must align and level either the engagement or clearance indices
so that the angulation between wire and bracket against the bracket index.
is within 3.7 degrees or else binding will
increasingly occur until sliding ceases altogether.
Future work
To accomplish that best case scenario most easily
within the strength and stiffness requirements Future investigations of θc will compare bracket
of the appliance, the bracket Width and wire and engagement indices of select manufactured
Size should be small, and the bracket Slot should archwire-bracket combinations to these theoret-
be large. Although the use of a smaller Slot is ical nominal values. In addition, θcs will be
possible, the precision must be greater prior to assessed for select manufactured archwire-
initializing sliding mechanics. bracket combinations in terms of their actual
204 R . P. K U S Y A N D J. Q. W H I T L E Y

calculated values and experimental measurements, References

the latter being determined by their specific
Angolkar P V, Kapila S, Duncanson M G Jr, Nanda R S
resistances to sliding at several θs. Thereby, the 1990 Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and
role of classical friction and binding will be more orthodontic wires of four alloys. American Journal of
fully elucidated. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 98: 499–506
Articolo L C, Kusy R P 1997 Influence of angulation on
binding of orthodontic materials during sliding. Journal
of Dental Research 76: 197 (Abstract)
Conclusions
Frank C A, Nikolai R J 1980 A comparative study
Using only wire Size, bracket Slot, and bracket of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket
Width dimensions, theoretical equations (AI9) and archwire. American Journal of Orthodontics 78:
593–609
and (AII3) can be derived that describe the
Hansen J D, Kusy R P, Saunders C R 1998 Archwire
value at which any critical contact angle (θc) damage from ceramic brackets via notching. Orthodontic
is attained. Thus, this angle at which binding Review (in press)
increasingly prevents sliding mechanics from Jastrzebski Z D 1976 The nature and properties of
occurring may be determined. engineering materials, 2nd edn. Wiley & Sons, New York,
The derivation of the θc equations shows that pp. 182–185
there are two indices of importance: the engage- Kapila S, Angolkar P V, Duncanson M G Jr, Nanda R S
1990 Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless
ment index, which expresses the ratio of the wire steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys.
Size to the bracket Slot; and the bracket index, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
which expresses the ratio of the bracket Width to Orthopedics 98: 117–126
its Slot. Knowledge of both the archwire and the Kusy R P, Schafer D L 1995 Effect of salivary viscosity on
frictional coefficients of orthodontic archwire/bracket
bracket is required for sliding mechanics to be couples. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in
understood. Medicine 6: 390–395
For nominal wire and bracket dimensions the Kusy R P, Whitley J Q 1990a Coefficients of friction for
boundaries of the bracket index versus engage- archwires in stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina
ment index suggest that θc must lie between 0 bracket slots. I: the dry state. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 98: 300–312
and approximately 4 degrees for sliding to occur.
Kusy R P, Whitley J Q 1990b Effects of surface roughness
Given this limited range of θc, a simple practical on the coefficients of friction in model orthodontic
equation (AIII5) can be derived. Within this range systems. Journal of Biomechanics 23: 913–925
the wider brackets restrict sliding mechanics by Kusy R P, Whitley J Q 1997 Friction between different
reducing θc. wire-bracket configurations and materials. Seminars in
Orthodontics 3: 166–177
Kusy R P, Whitley J Q, Prewitt M J 1991 Comparison of
Address for correspondence the frictional coefficients for selected archwire bracket
slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle
Professor Robert P. Kusy Orthodontist 61: 293–302
University of North Carolina Kusy R P, Tobin E J, Whitley J Q, Sioshansi, P 1992
Frictional coefficients of ion-implanted alumina against
DRC Building 210H ion-implanted beta titanium in the low load, low velocity,
CB# 7455 single pass regime. Dental Materials 8: 167–172
Chapel Hill Kusy R P, Saunders C R, Whitley J Q 1997 Improving arch
NC 27599, USA mechanics through surface chemistry. In: Nanda R (ed.)
Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. W B Saunders
Company, Philadelphia, pp. 50–64
Acknowledgements Nanda R, Ghosh J 1997 Biomechanical considerations
in sliding mechanics. In: Nanda R (ed.) Biomechanics
We thank Mr Kevin Kusy for his assistance in clinical orthodontics. W B Saunders Company,
Philadelphia, pp. 188–217
with the derivation set out in Appendix I and
Peterson L, Spencer R, Andreasen G F 1982 A comparison
Dr William R. Proffit for his helpful comments
of frictional resistance of Nitinol and stainless steel wires
during the early preparation of the many drafts in Edgewise brackets. Quintessence International Digest
of this manuscript. 13: 563–571
C R I T I CA L C O N TAC T A N G L E S F O R B I N D I N G 205

Pratten D H, Popli K, Germane N, Gunsolley J 1990 morphology and frictional coefficients. Journal of
Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 4: 422–430
orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics Saunders C R, Kusy R P 1994 Surface topography and
and Dentofacial Orthopedics 98: 398–403 frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. American
Proffit W R 1993 Contemporary orthodontics, 2nd edn. Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Mosby Year Book, St. Louis, p. 306 106: 76–87
Tidy D C 1989 Frictional forces in fixed appliances.
Prososki R P, Bagby M D, Erickson L C 1991 Static American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium Orthopedics 96: 249–254
archwires. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics 100: 341–348 Tselepis M, Brockhurst P, West V C 1994 Frictional
resistance between brackets and archwires. American
Saunders C R, Kusy R P 1993 Surface modification Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
methodologies for polycrystalline alumina: effects on 106: 131–138

Appendix I

Figure 5 Schematic drawing of the relationship between an archwire and a bracket in terms of the wire Size, bracket Slot
and Width, and θc. For clarity only the four tie-wings of the bracket are highlighted; the retention pad is shown as a dashed
line. Note also that two dummy parameters (x and y) and two similar triangles (ABC and EDC) are introduced.

To derive this critical condition, reference must be made to Figure 5, in which two similar triangles,
ABC and EDC, must be identified in which ‘x’ and ‘y’ represent two dummy variables. Because these
are similar triangles,
— — — —
AB /AC = ED/EC
or
Size/y = Width/(Slot – x) (AI1)
From the Pythagorean Theorem,
— — —
(BC )2 = (AB)2 + (AC )2,
or
(x2) = (Size)2 + (y)2,
so that
y = [x2 – (Size)2]0.5 (AI2)
206 R . P. K U S Y A N D J. Q. W H I T L E Y

Substituting equation (AI2) into equation (AI1),

Size/[x2 – (Size)2]0.5 = Width/(Slot – x)
Squaring both sides of the expression,
(Size)2/[x2 – (Size)2] = (Width)2/(Slot – x)2
After expanding,
(Size)2/[x2 – (Size)2] = (Width)2/[(Slot)2 – 2 (Slot)x + x2]
and applying the distributive law,
(Size)2 (Slot)2 – 2 (Size)2 (Slot) x + (Size)2 x2 = (Width)2 x2 – (Width)2 (Size)2
After rearranging,
(Size)2 x2 – (Width)2 x2 – 2 (Size)2 (Slot)x + (Size)2 (Slot)2 + (Width)2 (Size)2 = 0,
or
[(Size)2 – (Width)2]x2 + [–2 (Size)2 (Slot)]x + [(Size)2 (Slot)2 + (Width)2 (Size)2] = 0
To simplify the mathematics, three dummy variables, v, w, and d are now introduced and assigned as
follows: v = Size, w = Slot, and d = Width,
(v2 – d2)x2 + (–2v2w)x + (v2w2 + d2v2) = 0 (AI3)
Solving equation AI3 using the quadratic formula, ax2 + bx + c = 0, in which
x = [–b ± (b2 – 4ac)0.5)/2a
and a, b, and c are the coefficients of the first, second, and third terms and equal (v2 – d2), (–2v2w),
and (v2w2 + d2v2), respectively,
–(–2v2w) ± [(–2v2w)2 – 4(v2 – d2) (v2w2 + d2v2)]0.5
x= . (AI4)
2(v2 – d2)
From triangle ABC (Figure 5),
Size = xcos θc,
so that
x = Size/cos θc = v/cos θc. (AI5)
Substituting equation (AI5) into equation (AI4) and rearranging yields,
2v(v2 – d2)
θc = cos–1 . (AI6)
+2v2w ± [(–2v2w)2 – 4(v2 – d2)v2 (w2 + d2)]0.5
Factoring out 2v yields,
(v2 – d2)
θc = cos–1 . (AI7)
vw ± [(v2w2) – (v2 – d2) (w2 + d2)]0.5
Simplifying the denominator gives,
(v2 – d2)
θc = cos–1 . (AI8)
vw ± [d2(–v2 + w2 + d2)]0.5
C R I T I CA L C O N TAC T A N G L E S F O R B I N D I N G 207

Finally, substituting the original definitions for v, w, and d into equation (AI8) gives,
(Size)2 – (Width)2
θc = cos–1 . (AI9)
(Size) (Slot) ± {(Width)2 [–(Size)2 + (Slot)2 + (Width)2]}0.5
Equation (AI9) defines the exact, closed form solution of the critical contact angle at which binding
theoretically occurs as a function of archwire size, bracket slot, and bracket width.

Appendix II
To derive the equivalent, theoretical equation the definition of the tangent function is applied to
Figure 5 as:
tan θc = sin θc/cos θc = (side opposite θc)/(side adjacent θc).
The θc may be defined by the angle EDC in triangle EDC as
— —
tan θc = EC /ED = (Slot – x)/Width. (AII1)
Substituting equation (AI5) into equation (AII1) yields
tan θc = [Slot – (Size/cos θc)]/Width
By multiplying all terms by cos θc,
sin θc = [Slot (cos θc) – Size]/Width
and rearranging,
Size = –Width (sin θc) + Slot (cos θc). (AII2)
Although equation AII2 requires an iterative solution, division by the Slot gives the dimensionless
terms that are desired to understand the practical implications of the more cumbersome (and, hence,
less comprehensible) equation AI9. Thus,
Size Width
=– (sin θc) + cos θc . (AII3)
Slot Slot

Appendix III
For θc ≤ 5 degrees equation (AII3) may be simplified by substituting sin θc ≈ π θc /180 and cos θc ≈ 1 as
shown below:
Size Width
=– (πθc /180) + 1. (AIII1)
Slot Slot

Multiplying by Slot/Width,
Slot Size Slot
= – πθc /180 + . (AIII2)
Width Slot Width
 208 R . P. K U S Y A N D J. Q. W H I T L E Y

Subtracting Slot/Width from both sides,

Slot Size Slot
– = – πθc /180. (AIII3)
Width Slot Width

Multiplying by –180/π,

θc = 180/π – ( Slot Size

Width Slot
+
Slot
Width
) . (AIII4)

Factoring Slot/Width out of the right-hand terms of equation (AIII4) yields the simple, practical
equation:
57.32[1 – (Size/Slot)]
θc = . (AIII5)
(Width/Slot)

View publication stats