How to Calculate Torque of a Leaning Rigid Body

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bennigan88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Body Rigid body Torque
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the torque of a leaning rigid body, specifically a ladder leaning against a wall. Participants explore the principles of torque calculation, including the role of the center of mass and integration techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the distance used to determine torque is halfway up the ladder, suggesting a need for clarification on the concept of torque and its calculation.
  • Another participant asserts that gravity acts at the center of mass, implying this is why torque is calculated at that point.
  • There is a proposal to use a Riemann sum to calculate torque, with a detailed breakdown of how to approach the problem using linear density and integration.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the integration approach and whether it aligns with the concept of torque being calculated at the center of mass.
  • Some participants challenge the setup of the initial integral and suggest corrections to the mathematical expressions used in the calculations.
  • A later reply emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying elements in the torque calculation and encourages the participant to finish their calculations.
  • One participant expresses excitement about recognizing their previous missteps and the importance of generalizing the problem to a variable length.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the principle that gravity acts at the center of mass, but there is no consensus on the specific calculations and methods for determining torque, leading to multiple competing views and unresolved questions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the setup of integrals and the identification of mass elements in their calculations, indicating potential limitations in their approaches.

Bennigan88
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
So this is a conceptual question, it's not a direct homework question, but it does involve how to do a kind of calculation. I hope this isn't the wrong place to post a nonspecific question like this. In the case of a board/stick/ladder leaning against a wall, about an axis O at the bottom of the object where it is in contact with the ground, why is the distance used to determine torque (which is Force x Distance x sin θ) halfway up the ladder? Ladder is 15m long in my example.

I tried to use integration to calculate the torque, and this is what I ended up with:

[tex] \tau = mg \times x \times \sin\theta = mgsin\theta \cdot x \\<br /> <br /> d\tau = mg \sin\theta \cdot dx \\<br /> <br /> \int d\tau = \int mgsin\theta dx \\<br /> <br /> \int d\tau = mg \sin\theta \int dx \\ = mg \sin\theta \int_0^{15} dx \\<br /> <br /> = mgsin\theta \cdot x |_0^{15} \\<br /> <br /> = 15 \cdot mg \sin\theta[/tex]

So why is the scalar for distance 1/2 of the length rather than the entire length like my calculations? What am I missing? Thanks for any insight.

! The mass also changes, so I think I need a differential mass element... more thinking required :/
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
why is the distance used to determine torque (which is Force x Distance x sin θ) halfway up the ladder?
Because gravity acts at the center of mass.
 
Or can I use a Riemann sum to calculate the torque? Assume the ladder is divided up into n pieces, and the mass of each piece is its linear density λ times the change in distance.

[tex] \tau = x \cdot F \cdot \sin\theta \\<br /> F = m \cdot g \\<br /> m = \lambda \Delta x \\<br /> \tau_i = x_i \cdot \lambda \Delta x \cdot g \cdot \sin\theta = \lambda g \sin\theta \cdot x_i \cdot \Delta x \\<br /> \sum_i^n \lambda g \sin\theta \cdot x_i \cdot \Delta x \\<br /> \lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_i^n \lambda g \sin\theta \cdot x_i \cdot \Delta x = \int_0^{15} \lambda g \sin\theta x dx\\<br /> = \lambda g \sin\theta \cdot \int_0^{15} x dx = \lambda g \sin\theta \cdot \left[ \dfrac{1}{2}x^2 \right]_0^{15}[/tex]

I don't see this moving towards a validation of the torque being calculated at the half-way point with mg acting on the center of gravity... can anyone nudge me in the right direction?
 
Simon Bridge said:
Because gravity acts at the center of mass.

I am aware of that, but shouldn't I end up finding the same torque using integration?
 
Well yes - and the integrated part will amount to finding the center of mass.
So your question amounts to: "how come I keep blowing the math?"
 
Bennigan88 said:
[tex] \tau = mg \times x \times sin ^\theta = mgsin\theta \cdot x \\<br /> <br /> d\tau = mgsin\theta \cdot dx \\[/tex]
Not sure what the first equation is saying, but the second is wrong. The RHS is the mass of the element dx multiplied by g sin(θ). The distance is x sin(θ):
[tex] d\tau = mgxsin\theta \cdot dx \\[/tex]
 
* Actually I think you got it right in the reiman sum - the first integral was poorly set up which is why it didn't work.

Finish the calculation.
[tex] g\lambda\sin(\theta)\int_0^L x.dx = g\lambda\sin(\theta)\cdot \frac{1}{2}x^2 \bigg |_0^L = \frac{g\lambda L^2}{2} \sin(\theta)[/tex]
... which is what you want - because λL = m, the mass of the ladder.In the first derivation, you misidentified the elements - it should have gone from [itex]\tau = mgx\sin(\theta)[/itex] to [itex]d\tau = gx\sin(\theta)\cdot dm[/itex].
In the second derivation you lost confidence just before the payoff :)
 
Last edited:
You're right! I'm thrilled! I need to get better at recognizing things in the answers. This isn't the first time I've gotten something more or less right but didn't see it because I didn't make the connection. Thanks for seeing it through with me!:biggrin: Generalizing the 15 to L was I think the coup de grace that I was missing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K