Three principal axis moments of inertia for hexagonal prism?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the mass moments of inertia for a hexagonal prism, specifically with the z-axis aligned longitudinally. The original poster is attempting to recall concepts from calculus related to volume and area, using the dimensions of the prism, including height and side length.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster discusses various methods for calculating moments of inertia, including dividing the hexagon into equilateral triangles and rectangles. They express uncertainty about their approach to defining differentials and relating them to the inertia formula.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging with the original poster's attempts, suggesting that they clarify their methods and share their work for better guidance. Some participants offer insights into using known moments of inertia for simpler shapes and applying theorems related to axes.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions confusion regarding the integration process and the definition of mass elements, indicating a potential gap in understanding the application of calculus to the problem. There is also a suggestion to post visual work to facilitate further discussion.

John Darvish
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I'm trying to figure out the mass moments of inertia for a hexagonal prism, with the z-axis being longitudinal. I'm trying to recall my calc 3 from 2 years ago and am failing miserably.

I know the height of the prism is h. Each hexagonal side is length a. The prism has constant density ρ. I can easily find the area and volume via relationships with equilateral triangles.

With the above dimensions and constants

ρ = m/V
m = ρ*V = 3*√3 /2 *ρ*a2*h

I initially tried to find the 3 moments of inertia just using a combination of 6 equilateral triangles. My second attempt divided up the hexagon into rectangles and then the remaining triangles. I didn't get the results I had seen via internet searches, though some of the internet searches had different results for the moments of inertia so they may have been in error.

I'm not exactly sure what I am doing right or wrong. I think my errors are in defining the dx, dy, and dz differentials when I am trying to relate dm from the general inertia formula.

∫r2 dm

I'd appreciate any help you can provide.

Thanks

John
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wiki has a list of moments of inertia. The plane polygon one can give you the prism's moment around the longitudinal axis. The rod one can give you a reasonable approximation to the other two. The rod in wiki is cylindrical. If you want to get an exact answer for the prism for the two non-longitudinal axes, I suggest you first post your attempts along those lines, and people can point out where/if it has gone wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Simon Bridge
Dividing the shape into simpler bits is what you are doing right.
Trouble is that you don't seem to know what to do with the simple bits... and, since you are so uncertain, you have not been brave enough to detail what you tried here. It is difficult to help you if we don't know how you were using the equilateral triangles etc.
Remember that you are dividing up a volume... and triangles do not have a volume. So what did you do?

The trick is to divide into bits that you already know the moment of inertia for, and use the parallel and perpendicular axis theorems. Is that what you tried? Or did you just get stuck after sketching out the shapes?

The calc approach is to realize that the moment of inertia about (say) the z axis, of the mass element dm at position (x,y,z) is
$$dL = \rho(x^2+y^2)dxdydz$$
... for uniform density object.
 
Thanks folks for replies. I'll take a photo of some of the work I've done later tonight, hopefully, to show the beginnings of putting the triple integral together for one of the axes. I think my most promising approach is dividing the hexagon into a rectangle and triangle and then going from there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Simon Bridge

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K