Moment of Inertia of Washer-like Ring

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the moment of inertia of a washer-like ring with specific dimensions and density. The original poster presents the problem setup, including the relevant equations and their attempt at a solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the integration approach for finding the moment of inertia, questioning whether to treat the washer as a whole or in parts. There is confusion regarding the use of density versus mass in the calculations, and participants explore the implications of their choices on the results.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on the integration process and suggest checking the calculations for consistency. There is recognition of differing approaches and the potential for misunderstanding in the application of equations, but no consensus has been reached on the best method.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the requirement to "prove" the formula as part of the homework, which may influence their approach to the problem. There is also a note about the complexity of the integration and the need to evaluate variables independently.

InSaNiUm
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
First of all hi to everyone. This is my first post, though I've been reading (read: lurking) for a while. A lot of good, smart people willing to help each other. I've learned so much by just browsing...
Anyway, here's my problem:

Homework Statement


Given: A washer-like ring with:
[tex]\rho =8,000[/tex] kg/m[tex]{}^2[/tex],
thickness .01 m,
.250 m outer radius,
and .125 m radius hole cut out of the center.
It sits on top of the x-axis, symmetric about the y-axis, with it's center, [tex]\inline{I_G}[/tex] at (0, .25, 0). (z-axis is taken to be orthogonal to your monitor.)
I think I made that clear...
We are to find the moment of inertia about the origin, [tex]\inline{I_O}[/tex].

Homework Equations


[tex] \begin{align}<br /> dI_G = r^2\,dm\\<br /> I_O = I_G + m\,d^2 \mathrm{(parallel \,axis \,thrm)}\\<br /> dm = \rho\,dV<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


The way I tried to solve it:
[tex] \begin{align}<br /> dI_G = r^2\,dm\\<br /> dm = \rho\,dV\\<br /> = \rho\,r\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> \hookrightarrow dI_G = r^2\,\rho\,r\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> I_G = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\!\!\!\int_{0}^{.01}\!\!\!\int_{.125}^{.25}\,\rho{}\,r^3\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> ...\hookrightarrow I_G = \rho\,2\pi\,z\,\frac{r^4}{4}<br /> \end{align}[/tex]
Before even plugging in the limits this is clearly wrong, but I'm not finding any calculation errors. My logic was that if I integrated over r from the inner to outer radius I wouldn't have to do the problem in two separate parts (disk minus smaller disk).
If I integrate [tex]\inline{dm}[/tex] on it's own, solve for [tex]\inline{\rho}[/tex] and plug it into my result above, things cancel and I get the sought after [tex]\frac{m\,r^2}{2}[/tex]
I'm thoroughly confused... This seems recursive. Didn't I include the density when I set up my integrals?
I'm sure there's a concept here that's just eluding me. Anyone feel like explaining this one?
Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
InSaNiUm said:
Before even plugging in the limits this is clearly wrong, but I'm not finding any calculation errors.
What makes you think it is wrong? (Overkill, surely, but not wrong.) Your answer is in terms of density; to relate it to the more familiar equation in terms of mass, plug in [itex]\rho = m/V = m/(\pi r^2 z)[/itex].

My logic was that if I integrated over r from the inner to outer radius I wouldn't have to do the problem in two separate parts (disk minus smaller disk).
That's fine. But unless this is an exercise in calculus, wouldn't it be easier to do it in two parts using the known formula for the rotational inertia of a disk?
 
I realize that my approach isn't necessarily the simplest. I'm just baffled as to why the answer is numerically different if I use eqn. (6) and plug in the density that was given in the problem; versus simplifying it into terms of mass like you suggested and then solving for said mass separately and plugging that in. It seems like the equations should be yielding identical results if they are to describe the same quantity of the same system. Again - there's got to be something I'm just not seeing/understanding.

As per your second question: It probably would be easier but I'm supposed to be ``proving'' the formula as part of the process.

And thank you for replying! I appreciate you taking the time to help. :cool:
 
InSaNiUm said:
I realize that my approach isn't necessarily the simplest. I'm just baffled as to why the answer is numerically different if I use eqn. (6) and plug in the density that was given in the problem; versus simplifying it into terms of mass like you suggested and then solving for said mass separately and plugging that in. It seems like the equations should be yielding identical results if they are to describe the same quantity of the same system. Again - there's got to be something I'm just not seeing/understanding.
Are you sure you are plugging numbers into your equation (6) correctly? I get the same answer either way.

Remember that each variable in the triple integral is evaluated independently. That means you'd get a value of:
[tex]I_G = \rho\,2\pi\,z\,\frac{r^4}{4} = \rho 2 \pi \frac{(0.01)}{4} (r_2^4 - r_1^4)[/tex]
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K