Finding the moment of inertia of a uniform square lamina

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the moment of inertia for a uniform square lamina using the perpendicular and parallel axis theorems. The initial calculation for the large square's moment of inertia is derived as (8/3)M(a^2), but discrepancies arise when subtracting the moments of inertia of two smaller squares. A participant corrects the mass of the smaller squares from M/9 to M/16, prompting further clarification on the formulas used. Questions are raised about the application of the moment of inertia formula, specifically whether to use (1/3)ml^2 or (1/6)ml^2. The conversation concludes with a request for further explanation on the calculations.
kingkong69
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9443/ssssnm.png
parallel and perpendicular axis theorem for moment of inertias
So i solved the Moment of inertia for the large square through the perpendicular axis through a,

(1/3)*M*(l^2), where l is 4a/2=2a,
using the perpendicular theorem, Ixx+Iyy=Izz,
we have (4/3)*M*(a^2)+(4/3)*M*(a^2)=(8/3)*M*(a^2), then using the parallel theorem, I,+md^2=I.,
d is the distance AO, which is sqrt.(8)*a therefore d^2= 8a^2
we get (8/3)*M*(a^2) + M*8*(a^2)=(32/3)M*(a^2)

Now I will subtract the moment of inertia of the 2 small squares from the big square's moment of inertia we got.

The small squares moment of inertia through its perpendicular centre is (m/3)*(a/2)^2=ma^2/12, and m is M/9 therefore it is M*a^2/108,

The axis is at vertex A, so we apply the parallel axis theorem, d^2 = 12.5, so we get 25Ma^2/2 + Ma^2/108=1351Ma^2/108

The two small squares are identical so it is 1351Ma^2/54

subtracting we got a different result
Any help is appreciated thanks alot!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi kingkong69! :smile:
kingkong69 said:
… m is M/9 …

nooo :redface:

m is M/16 :wink:
 
Hi tiny-tim!

Thanks for pointed my mistake out, is the rest correct?
 
Alright I found it! Thanks a ton again!
 
(1/3)*M*(l^2), where l is 4a/2=2a,
isn't the l here is 32a^2
 
why are you using the formula 1/3ml^2 inspite of 1/6ml^2?Then why have u taken the a as 4a/2.Please explain and if u got the right answer,please explain it here.
 
Gauranga said:
why are you using the formula 1/3ml^2 inspite of 1/6ml^2?Then why have u taken the a as 4a/2.Please explain and if u got the right answer,please explain it here.

hey sorry didnt answer you
do you want me to explain it or you ok with it?
 
Back
Top