Parallel-Axis Theorem Clarification

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vladittude0583
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Parallel-Axis Theorem as presented in the Fundamentals of Physics textbook, specifically focusing on the formulation of the Moment of Inertia for rigid bodies about an axis parallel to the center of mass. Participants explore the mathematical derivation and conceptual understanding of the theorem, including its components and implications.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the inclusion of Icm in the Parallel-Axis Theorem formula, questioning why it is necessary alongside the MD^2 term.
  • Another participant explains that when a body rotates about an axis parallel to its centroidal axis, both the movement of mass around the parallel axis and rotation about the centroidal axis must be considered, hence the need for the centroidal moment term.
  • A mathematical derivation is presented, showing how the integral of the moment of inertia can be expressed in terms of the center of mass and its relation to the total mass.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the integral of the distance from the center of mass to a particle, with questions about why this integral equals zero and how it relates to the concept of the center of mass.
  • Another participant discusses the definition of the center of mass and its role in evaluating integrals, emphasizing that the average value can simplify calculations.
  • A later reply acknowledges understanding of the cancellation of terms in the integral due to the definition of the center of mass.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of understanding and confusion regarding the Parallel-Axis Theorem and its mathematical implications. While some clarify aspects of the theorem, others express ongoing uncertainty about specific interpretations and calculations, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the mathematical steps involved in the derivation of the Parallel-Axis Theorem and the implications of the center of mass in calculations. There are unresolved questions about the interpretation of integrals and the role of average values in the context of the theorem.

vladittude0583
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, we are currently studying chapter 10 in the Fundamentals of Physics 8th. Ed. Halliday & Resnick Textbook and I am having a little problem understanding the Parallel-Axis Theorem. I understand that the Moment of Inertia (Rotational Inertia) is derived from the Kinetic Energy Formula for Rotational Motion of a rigid body. However, the Parallel-Axis Theorem allows us to formulate the Moment of Inertia of a particular rigid body about an axis parallel to the axis of the center of mass. What I do not understand is why the formula for the Parallel-Axis Theorem has Icm + MD^2? Why do you include the Icm and not just take the differential mass element at some distance "r" from the axis of rotation and calculate it that way - is this way more complicated? The way I interpreted the Icm part is that it represents the differential mass element of the rigid body right at some distance "r" from the new axis of rotation right? I totally understand the whole Moment of Inertia is I = integral r^2 dm which is the same thing as the MD^2 portion of the parallel-axis theorem right? I guess I am just trying to figure out why there is that plus in the middle of the formula and what it all means? Could someone please help clarify this for me because its just confusing to me. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When a body rotates about an axis parallel to its centroidal axis, not only do you need to move that mass around the parallel axis (which can be considered a point mass at a distance r from the rotation axis), but it also needs to rotate about its own centroidal axis, which means you need to add the centroidal moment term.
 
All you need is this two formulas:
1. Integral[alfa*f+beta*g]=alfa*Integral[f]+beta*Integral[g]
2. Integral[(x-<x>)*dm]=0 (definition of center of mass <x>)

Below I used x' for (x-<x>) and y' for (y-<y>):

Integral[r^2*dm]=Int[x^2+y^2*dm]=Int[( (x'+<x>)^2+(y'+<y>)^2 )*dm]=
Int[(x'^2+2*x'*<x>+<x>^2+y'^2+2*y'*<y>+<y>^2)*dm]=
Int[(x'^2+y'^2)*dm]+Int[(<x>^2+<y>^2)*dm]=
Int[r'^2*dm]+Int[<r>^2*dm]=
Icm+<r>^2*m
 
Lojzek said:
2. Integral[(x-<x>)*dm]=0 (definition of center of mass <x>)

Could you clarify this a little better? Is the x the distance along the x-axis to the particle? If so, then you are subtracting out the location on the x-axis of the CM, <x>, right? Which is basically the distance along the x-axis from the CM to the particle.

Now comes my confusion, why does the integral of {(the distance from the CM to the particle)*(mass of the particle)} equal zero. Why not int(x'*dm) = (x' as constant) x'*m?

Is the definition of center of mass supposed to tip me off that we can think of it as having no mass there (x') and all being concentrated at the CM? Therefore int(x'*dm) = x'*m, but the m is zero everywhere except x'=0, which of course makes the expression zero everywhere.

This just feels a little fishy to me, at one point (when calculating the moment of inertia) the Center of Mass is not brought into the reasoning (except to find the axis to measure from). For instance when we calculate the moment of inertia as a sum of all the infinitely small masses (dm) multiplied by the square of their respective distances (r), in other symbols integral(r^2 * dm), we do not think of the mass concentrated at the CM. Of course it would be a trivial calculation if we considered all of the mass to be at the origin of the calculation, the integral would be zero.

I feel like I am missing something so I am just wanting to get the specifics of the interpretation correct. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
The reason for usefullness of average values is easier evaluation of the sum or integral with which that average was defined.
Center of mass is defined as:

<x>=Integral[x*dm]/m (m=Integral[dm]=total mass)

This means we can use <x> to evaluate the integral:

Integral[x*dm]=<x>*m

The equation I used follows:

0=Integral[x*dm]-<x>*m=Integral[x*dm]-<x>*Integral[dm]=Integral[(x-<x>)*dm]

In general it is not correct to replace a variable in an integral by it's average value. This is possible only if the average was defined with that integral.
 
Ah, I see it now. Once you take the integral of the entire object, by definition of the center of mass, every m*x' will inevitably have an equal but opposite -(m*x') that then cancels everything to zero. I'm with you on that now, I appreciate the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K