Calculating Rotational Inertia of a Rectangular Prism

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the rotational inertia of a rectangular prism with uniform mass distribution about an axis through one corner. The moment of inertia is derived using the integral of the squared distance from the axis of rotation, leading to the formula I = (M/3)(a^2 + b^2 + c^2). A key point raised is that the moment of inertia's dependence on the dimension c varies based on whether density is fixed or adjusted to maintain a constant mass. If density is constant, the moment of inertia will depend on c, while if mass is fixed, it becomes independent of c. The calculations and considerations presented highlight the complexities involved in determining rotational inertia for varying conditions.
r16
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


There is a rectangular prism of uniform mass distribution with lengths of a, b, and c (b>a>c). Calculate it's rotational inertia about an axis through one corner and perpendicular to the large faces.

Homework Equations


I = \int r^2 dm
r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2
\rho = \frac{M}{V}
V = abc

The Attempt at a Solution



I am examining a cubic differential mass of dm's contribution on the moment of inertia about the axis of rotation. The radius between dm and the axis of rotation is r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2. The density, \rho, is constant which is \frac{M}{V}, so dm = \rho dV.

I = \int r^2 dm = \int (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) \rho dV
I = \rho \iiint_V x^2 dV + y^2 dV + z^2 dV = \int^a_0 \int^b_0 \int^c_0 x^2 dzdydx + \int^a_0 \int^b_0 \int^c_0 y^2 dzdydx + \int^a_0 \int^b_0 \int^c_0 z^2 dzdydx [/itex]<br /> I = \frac{\rho}{3} ( a^3 bc + ab^3 c + abc^3)<br /> I = \frac{M}{3abc} ( a^3 bc + ab^3 c + abc^3)<br /> I = \frac{M}{3} (a^2 + b^2 + c^2)<br /> <br /> This problem looked cool so I did it, but it was an even one so there is no answer in the back of the book. Does this look right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this the situation? (red is axis of rotation)
1657047568503.png

If this is the case, the moment of inertia can not depend on c.
There is another, simpler, shape that you can use instead...
 
The classical mistake when calculating MoIs: ##r## should not be the magnitude of the position vector of the element dV, but its distance perpendicularly to the axis of rotation.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin and malawi_glenn
drmalawi said:
Is this the situation? (red is axis of rotation)
View attachment 303793
If this is the case, the moment of inertia can not depend on c.
There is another, simpler, shape that you can use instead...
Just to add a side note: This depends on what is considered given. If the density is known and fixed, then the MoI will depend on c because larger c means more mass. If the density is instead adjusted such that the total mass ##M## is known, then indeed the MoI will be independent of c.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and malawi_glenn
Orodruin said:
This depends on what is considered given
That's true, the c-dependece will show up in M if a fixed density is given (also M would have a and b dependence M = ρabc)
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
52
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
993
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
980
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K