Area moment of inertia-circular cross section

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the area moment of inertia for a circular cross-section, specifically the formula I_d = πa^4/4 for a circular disk about a diameter. The integral used to derive this formula is expressed as I_d = ∫y² dA, where y is the distance to the diameter. A correct evaluation involves a double integral in polar coordinates, leading to the same result. The conversation also touches on the Euler-Bernoulli Beam Equation, emphasizing the significance of the area moment of inertia in bending problems. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately solving related engineering problems.
ichiro_w
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Area moment of inertia--circular cross section

From the bending beam calculation, the moment of inertia of the cross section with regard to a coplanor axis of rotation is used. If we have a circular "beam", the area moment of inertia of a circular disk of radius a about a diameter is I_d = \frac{\pi a^4}{4} according to two separate references. I believe the integral involved can be generally stated as I_d = \int y^2 dA if y is the distance to the diameter d perpendicular to y which diameter (as all diameters of a uniformly mass distributed disk) passes through the centroid of the disk.

Now my stab at actually evaluating this is to do a double integral in polar coordinates and long story short the only way I can come up with the agreed upon answer is \int_0^\pi\int_0^a r^2\; r\; \mathrm{dr}\;\mathrm{d\theta} where r\;\mathrm{dr}\;\mathrm{d\theta}=dA and r^2 is the distance to the origin (centroid)

If I were in a creative writing glass I might get a passing grade for this fudge but I really would like to understand what I am doing better than backing into an answer like this. Any help would truly be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your formula is non-sense, and seems to have been contrived in order to get the agreed upon answer.

Here's a correct derivation:
We have:
y=r\sin\theta
Hence, you have:
I=\int_{A}y^{2}dA=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{a}r^{3}\sin^{2}\theta{drd\theta}=
\frac{\pi{a}^4}{4}
as required.
 
Last edited:
Thank you arildno,
I did that integral sometime in the past 3 years and was racking my memory to come up with it; I found another nonsense solution that agreed with the known answer but as in the one I posted (after 2 days and maybe 6 hours surfing the web searching for answers), the limits of integration didn't make sense.
Even so , the polar coordinate translations are basic and I am chagrined. It was not a waste however as this is the first time I have heard the term area moment of inertia even though I have done a lot of mass moments and radii of gyration calculations. The Euler-Bernoulli Beam Equation was under review here and it is fascinating:

\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\left[E I \frac{d^2w}{dx^2}\right]=\rho where E is Young's Modulus, I is the area moment of inertia, w is the out of plane displacement and \rho is force acting downward on a very short segment and has units of Force per unit length (distributed loading). The x-axis is the lengthwise polar axis passing through the center of the beam. If E and I do not vary with x, then E I \frac{d^4w}{dx^4} = \rho This is the first ODE I have come across that utilizes the fourth derivative and since the boundary conditions, depending on how the beam is supported include up to the third derivative, I wanted to make sure that I understood what the equation was saying and be able to relate to the area moment integral was critical. Thank you again.
 
It's been quite a while since I did bending problems; however, if I remember correctly, 4th derivatives are rather common there.
I think, for example, that the fourth order biharmonic equation occurs naturally (that is "the Laplacian of the Laplacian")
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top