Calculating Moment of Inertia for a Rectangle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the second moment of area (moment of inertia) for a rectangle, specifically addressing discrepancies between two methods. One method involves calculating the area of the top half of the rectangle and using the distance to the neutral axis, yielding I=(bh^3)/16. The other method, integrating from -h/2 to h/2, results in I=(bh^3)/12, which is confirmed as correct. The confusion arises from the distinction between using a mean distance versus the root mean square for the radius of gyration. The clarification emphasizes that integrating provides a more accurate calculation of the moment of inertia.
imstat
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If I have a Rectangle h high, b wide, I thought I could calculate 2nd Moment of Area, I , about its neutral axis this way: taking the top half of the rectangle, the area is bh/2, and then multiplying this by the distance from the centroid of the top half to the neutral axis, squared ie (h/4)**2. Then because there are two halves of the rectangle, doubling the answer. This all gives I=(bh**3)/16.

My problem is reconciling this with the answer obtained by integrating
(y**2) b dy from -h/2 to h/2, which gives I=bh**3)/12.

I generally thought the concept of second moment of area was an area times the distance of the centroid of the area to an axis it is rotated about, squared. Now I'm not so sure.

Any assistance appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I=\int _{S} r^2 dS

This is the definition, so your second calculation is correct.

I generally thought the concept of second moment of area was an area times the distance of the centroid of the area to an axis it is rotated about, squared

Although this looks much like the definition, and yields the correct units, it differs from it because you multiply instead of integrate. If you insist using multiplication of some sort of 'mean distance' (it's called the radius of gyration) with an area, you should not use h/4. Because the definition involves r^2 instead of r you should use the 'root mean square' instead of the mean distance for your radius of gyration. But calculating the root mean square involves another integration, so I'd just stick to the above integral...
 
Thank you da Willem. My concepts were not translating to accurate definition. So thanks for clarifying this for me.
Imstat
 
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