Statics, moment of inertia simple square-shape (no calculus)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the moment of inertia for a simple square cross-section without using calculus. The provided values for the central axes Xc and Yc are 33.9 mm and 150 mm, respectively. The correct moment of inertia calculations yield Ix = 1.008 x 10^8 mm^4 and Iy = 1.085 x 10^7 mm^4. A mistake was identified in the distance measurements for the rectangles, which was clarified through drawing and accurate measurement. The final calculations were confirmed to be correct after addressing the distance discrepancies.
Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
Statics, moment of inertia simple square-shape...need help (no calculus)

Homework Statement



Calculate the moment of inertia to the central axes Xc and Yc for the sketched cross-section.

Xc = 33.9 mm
Yc = 150 mm


http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1303/97823499.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Homework Equations



Moment of inertia geometrical shapes. No calculus.

Answers are

Ix = 1.008 x 10^8 mm^4
Iy = 1.085 x 10^7 mm4


The Attempt at a Solution


attached. I accidentally wrote Yc in the last equation instead of Iy...
 

Attachments

  • a1.jpg
    a1.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 554
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Your horizontal distance of the smaller rectangle has been taken as if it was horizontally centered, but it's not...
 


I've been trying to think what you mean but I'm not sure. Are my distances incorrect?
 


Femme_physics said:
I've been trying to think what you mean but I'm not sure. Are my distances incorrect?

You have your distances as:
(125/2-33.9) for the larger rectangle, but (110/2-33.9) for the smaller rectangle.
The latter is incorrect.

Perhaps if you draw it on paper (accurately enough), you can measure the distances and you'll see what I mean.
Note that it's always useful to make drawings like that if only to verify no mistakes were made.
 


Got it! So the distance should be 125-110/2-33.9 = 36.1.

Yep, right answer now :D Merci me amora!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top