Moment of inertia of system in 3D

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the moment of inertia of a 3D system of objects, the parallel axis theorem is essential, particularly when determining the inertia about the system's center of mass. The offset of each object should be defined as the position of the object from the system's center, not its center of mass. The correct formula for the moment of inertia incorporates the mass and the squared distance from the center of mass of the system. It's important to note that the moment of inertia is a matrix in 3D, and stability during rotation depends on the axis chosen. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurate calculations in complex systems.
PJani
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hey i am working on something and i need to know how to calculate moment of inertia of a 3D system of objects.

I know these variables:
Mass of whole system
Center of mass of whole system

Center of mass of each object
Offset of each object
Mass of each object
Moment of Inertia of each individual object(its precalculated)

I think i need to use parallel axis theorem but i am not sure how to actually calculate the "sum".

Is this right:

\vec{I_i}= \vec{I_{com_i}} + mass_i * (\vec{com_{system}}-\vec{offset_i} + \vec{com_i})^2
\vec{I_{system}} = \sum^{N}_{i=1}{\vec{I_i}}

?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
PJani said:
Hey i am working on something and i need to know how to calculate moment of inertia of a 3D system of objects.

I know these variables:
Mass of whole system
Center of mass of whole system

Center of mass of each object
Offset of each object
Mass of each object
Moment of Inertia of each individual object(its precalculated)

I think i need to use parallel axis theorem but i am not sure how to actually calculate the "sum".

Is this right:

\vec{I_i}= \vec{I_{com_i}} + mass_i * (\vec{com_{system}}-\vec{offset_i} + \vec{com_i})^2
\vec{I_{system}} = \sum^{N}_{i=1}{\vec{I_i}}

?
How are you defining an object's "offset"? I expected it to mean offset of object's c.o.m. from system's c.o.m., which would be \vec{com_i}-\vec{com_{system}}.
Anyway, assuming you want the MI about the system's c.o.m, I make the answer
\vec{I_i}= \vec{I_{com_i}} + mass_i * |\vec{com_i}-\vec{com_{system}}|^2
 
haruspex said:
How are you defining an object's "offset"? I expected it to mean offset of object's c.o.m. from system's c.o.m., which would be \vec{com_i}-\vec{com_{system}}.
Anyway, assuming you want the MI about the system's c.o.m, I make the answer
\vec{I_i}= \vec{I_{com_i}} + mass_i * |\vec{com_i}-\vec{com_{system}}|^2

offset is position of object from center of system(not the com_{system}) the com_i is "local" center of mass.
 
PJani said:
offset is position of object from center of system(not the com_{system}) the com_i is "local" center of mass.
OK, so is the MI required about the system c.o.m. or about the system centre (= origin?).
Anyway, my equation was wrong because I forgot to say that the vectors to use are only the components orthogonal to the axis of rotation.
 
Actually is the system centre. The system com is not "known" till the end of calculation/iteration

How do you mean by orthogonal. Because everything is axis aligned...
 
The full expression of moment of inertia of a 3D object is a matrix. If you know the specific axis you care about then you can take moments about that, but things can tricky. If that is not a principal axis of the object then rotation about it will not be stable. And in general it's not even stable about all of the principal axes.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top