Area moment of inertia-circular cross section

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the area moment of inertia for a circular cross-section, specifically the formula I_d = πa^4/4 for a circular disk about a diameter. The integral used to derive this formula is expressed as I_d = ∫y² dA, where y is the distance to the diameter. A correct evaluation involves a double integral in polar coordinates, leading to the same result. The conversation also touches on the Euler-Bernoulli Beam Equation, emphasizing the significance of the area moment of inertia in bending problems. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately solving related engineering problems.
ichiro_w
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Area moment of inertia--circular cross section

From the bending beam calculation, the moment of inertia of the cross section with regard to a coplanor axis of rotation is used. If we have a circular "beam", the area moment of inertia of a circular disk of radius a about a diameter is I_d = \frac{\pi a^4}{4} according to two separate references. I believe the integral involved can be generally stated as I_d = \int y^2 dA if y is the distance to the diameter d perpendicular to y which diameter (as all diameters of a uniformly mass distributed disk) passes through the centroid of the disk.

Now my stab at actually evaluating this is to do a double integral in polar coordinates and long story short the only way I can come up with the agreed upon answer is \int_0^\pi\int_0^a r^2\; r\; \mathrm{dr}\;\mathrm{d\theta} where r\;\mathrm{dr}\;\mathrm{d\theta}=dA and r^2 is the distance to the origin (centroid)

If I were in a creative writing glass I might get a passing grade for this fudge but I really would like to understand what I am doing better than backing into an answer like this. Any help would truly be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your formula is non-sense, and seems to have been contrived in order to get the agreed upon answer.

Here's a correct derivation:
We have:
y=r\sin\theta
Hence, you have:
I=\int_{A}y^{2}dA=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{a}r^{3}\sin^{2}\theta{drd\theta}=
\frac{\pi{a}^4}{4}
as required.
 
Last edited:
Thank you arildno,
I did that integral sometime in the past 3 years and was racking my memory to come up with it; I found another nonsense solution that agreed with the known answer but as in the one I posted (after 2 days and maybe 6 hours surfing the web searching for answers), the limits of integration didn't make sense.
Even so , the polar coordinate translations are basic and I am chagrined. It was not a waste however as this is the first time I have heard the term area moment of inertia even though I have done a lot of mass moments and radii of gyration calculations. The Euler-Bernoulli Beam Equation was under review here and it is fascinating:

\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\left[E I \frac{d^2w}{dx^2}\right]=\rho where E is Young's Modulus, I is the area moment of inertia, w is the out of plane displacement and \rho is force acting downward on a very short segment and has units of Force per unit length (distributed loading). The x-axis is the lengthwise polar axis passing through the center of the beam. If E and I do not vary with x, then E I \frac{d^4w}{dx^4} = \rho This is the first ODE I have come across that utilizes the fourth derivative and since the boundary conditions, depending on how the beam is supported include up to the third derivative, I wanted to make sure that I understood what the equation was saying and be able to relate to the area moment integral was critical. Thank you again.
 
It's been quite a while since I did bending problems; however, if I remember correctly, 4th derivatives are rather common there.
I think, for example, that the fourth order biharmonic equation occurs naturally (that is "the Laplacian of the Laplacian")
 
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...
Back
Top