Moments of Inertia by Integration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of calculating moments of inertia using direct integration. Participants explore different formulations of the moment of inertia equations and their applications in problem-solving.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the use of the derived formula for moments of inertia, questioning why the definition is not used in their textbook.
  • Another participant explains the distinction between two formulations for calculating moments of inertia, emphasizing that the choice of integration variable can simplify calculations depending on the shape being analyzed.
  • A participant seeks clarification on how to apply the original definition of moments of inertia in solving problems.
  • It is suggested that for the original definition, the area element \(dA\) can be replaced with a function representing the width of the shape at a given height.
  • There is a note that the approach for calculating \(I_y\) involves swapping the variables \(x\) and \(y\) in the formulas used for \(I_x\).
  • Participants discuss the formatting of LaTeX in the forum, indicating a difference from other platforms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to use for calculating moments of inertia, as different methods are discussed and preferences for certain formulations are expressed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the choice of integration method may depend on the specific geometry of the object being analyzed, and that the derived formulas may have limitations based on the shape's characteristics.

CivilSigma
Messages
227
Reaction score
58

Homework Statement


I am having trouble understanding the formula for Moments Of Inertia by direct integration.

Homework Equations


I understand the following (which is the definition) :

$$ I_x = \int y^2 dA $$ $$I_y = \int x^2 dA $$

However come to application on a problem, my book doesn't even use those formulas.

The authors derived a new formula:

$$ dI_x =\frac{1}{3} y^3 dx $$ $$I_x = \int dI_x$$

Here is a screen shot of what they did:

http://tinypic.com/r/2vjr5vq/8

Why do they do that? Why not just use the definition and solve?

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first formula for ##I_x## is a summation over horizontal strips between ##y## and ##y+dy##. The integration is over ##y## so in the integrand ##y## is the integration variable. The strips are not assumed to be all the same width, so the shape being integrated need not be a rectangle, and need not touch the ##x## axis.

The second formula for ##I_x## is a summation over vertical strips between ##x## and ##x+dx##. The integration is over ##x##. In the integrand ##y## represents the height of the top of the vertical strip above the ##x## axis. It assumes that the base of the strip is the ##x## axis.

The second formula is derived from the first, by using the formula for MOI of a vertical rectangle that was just derived.

The alternative formulation is provided because sometimes it will be easier to integrate over ##x## than over ##y##. In any given situation, one can choose the method that gives the easiest calculation. Note however that the first method is more general, as the second can only be used when the base of the shape is flat and runs along the ##x## axis, and the shape has no parts that project sideways beyond the base.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CivilSigma
Thank you for the reply andrewkirk!

I have to understand the use of $dI_x$ in the formula because we are summing up the moments of inertia of all the rectangles.

So, I'm just curious, how would I go about solving problems given the original (definition) equation for moments inertia?
 
sakonpure6 said:
how would I go about solving problems given the original (definition) equation for moments inertia?
You use the first formula you've written above, and you replace ##dA## by ##w(y)dy## where ##w(y)## is the width of the shape at height ##y##.
 
For both $I_x$ and $I_y$ ?
 
No, just for ##I_x##. To do ##I_y## you swap ##x## and ##y## in all formulas.

By the way, the code to get in-line latex math symbols on physicsforums is two consecutive # characters, not a single $. That's an annoying difference with Texmaker, which is what I use elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CivilSigma
Thank you Andre! I'll try some problems and hopefully I get them right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K