Work done by gravity to fill truncated cone.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the work done by gravity while filling a truncated cone with sand. The cone has a bottom radius R, an upper radius r (where R > r), and a height H. The original poster is exploring the integration of forces acting on infinitesimal discs within the cone.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster considers using a disc of radius 'x' and slant thickness 'dy' to calculate the work done, questioning how to integrate given the slanting nature of 'dy'. Some participants suggest using cylindrical coordinates and trigonometric functions to simplify the integration process.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the integration limits and the correct approach to express the volume of the discs. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the variables involved, particularly regarding the limits of integration for the radial variable.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on ensuring the correct interpretation of the geometry of the truncated cone and the implications for the integration process. The original poster has expressed uncertainty about the integration limits and the setup of the problem.

Dr.Brain
Messages
539
Reaction score
2
Ok i need to calculate the work done by gravity , while filling a truncated cone of bottom radius R and upper radius r (R>r) and height H , with sand of density 'd' , if we start filling the cone from bottom..

What i did was , I considered a disc of radius 'x' as a part of the cone and with thickness 'dy' , this dy is not vertical but slanting as per the contour of the cone , so the force on this disc would be 'd(pie)(x^2)(dy)g' and the total height to be raised against gravity is H //

So i guess work done should be : (d)(pie)(x^2)(dy)g .H , now because dy is slanting and not vertical ,should I integrate this expression from 0 to the 'total slanting height of the cone' ? ..hwo shud i integrate ..??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suggest using cylindrical coordinates for your integration.
 
any reference website , for using cylindrical coordinates...its been a long time i used them//?
 
You could also use basic trigonometric functions to make the integration simpler( use the semi vertical angle).
 
Ok i used the cylindrical coordinates ... The work done would be

/dW = / g.dm.z (because z is the distance to be transversed in vertical direction while filling the sand)

then dm = d.dV where d is the density of the sand

in cylindrical coordinates:

/dV = / r dr dO dz

i integrated dr from R to r
and dz from 0 to H ...

I got the wrong answer..
 
Limits!

For a given z, what are the correct limits for the integration over the radial variable?, Not r nor R.
 
I think limits for z would be 0 to H
 
  • #10
Dr.Brain said:
Ok i need to calculate the work done by gravity , while filling a truncated cone of bottom radius R and upper radius r (R>r) and height H , with sand of density 'd' , if we start filling the cone from bottom..

What i did was , I considered a disc of radius 'x' as a part of the cone and with thickness 'dy' , this dy is not vertical but slanting as per the contour of the cone , so the force on this disc would be 'd(pie)(x^2)(dy)g' and the total height to be raised against gravity is H //

So i guess work done should be : (d)(pie)(x^2)(dy)g .H , now because dy is slanting and not vertical ,should I integrate this expression from 0 to the 'total slanting height of the cone' ? ..hwo shud i integrate ..??
While the edges of your discs are slanted, that does not mean "dy" is slanted. Since the discs are infinitesimally thin, the slant of the edges is irrelevant: The volume of each disc is still [itex]\pi x^2 dy[/itex].

Now consider that each disc is raised by a height of "y", not H, so your integral becomes:
[tex]\int_0^H \rho \pi x^2\,gy \,dy[/tex]

Evaluating this is easy. First find an equation expressing x as a function of y. (No need for cylindrical coordinates.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K