Moment of Inertia of Washer-like Ring

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the moment of inertia for a washer-like ring with specific dimensions and density. The user expresses confusion over their approach, which involves integrating to find the moment of inertia about the center of mass and then applying the parallel axis theorem. They question why their results differ when using density versus mass in their calculations. Other participants suggest that while the user's method is valid, it may be more straightforward to calculate the moment of inertia in two parts, using known formulas for disks. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the importance of careful integration and variable evaluation in achieving consistent results.
InSaNiUm
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
First of all hi to everyone. This is my first post, though I've been reading (read: lurking) for a while. A lot of good, smart people willing to help each other. I've learned so much by just browsing...
Anyway, here's my problem:

Homework Statement


Given: A washer-like ring with:
\rho =8,000 kg/m{}^2,
thickness .01 m,
.250 m outer radius,
and .125 m radius hole cut out of the center.
It sits on top of the x-axis, symmetric about the y-axis, with it's center, \inline{I_G} at (0, .25, 0). (z-axis is taken to be orthogonal to your monitor.)
I think I made that clear...
We are to find the moment of inertia about the origin, \inline{I_O}.

Homework Equations


<br /> \begin{align}<br /> dI_G = r^2\,dm\\<br /> I_O = I_G + m\,d^2 \mathrm{(parallel \,axis \,thrm)}\\<br /> dm = \rho\,dV<br /> \end{align}<br />

The Attempt at a Solution


The way I tried to solve it:
<br /> \begin{align}<br /> dI_G = r^2\,dm\\<br /> dm = \rho\,dV\\<br /> = \rho\,r\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> \hookrightarrow dI_G = r^2\,\rho\,r\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> I_G = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\!\!\!\int_{0}^{.01}\!\!\!\int_{.125}^{.25}\,\rho{}\,r^3\,dr\,dz\,d\theta\\<br /> ...\hookrightarrow I_G = \rho\,2\pi\,z\,\frac{r^4}{4}<br /> \end{align}<br />
Before even plugging in the limits this is clearly wrong, but I'm not finding any calculation errors. My logic was that if I integrated over r from the inner to outer radius I wouldn't have to do the problem in two separate parts (disk minus smaller disk).
If I integrate \inline{dm} on it's own, solve for \inline{\rho} and plug it into my result above, things cancel and I get the sought after \frac{m\,r^2}{2}
I'm thoroughly confused... This seems recursive. Didn't I include the density when I set up my integrals?
I'm sure there's a concept here that's just eluding me. Anyone feel like explaining this one?
Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
InSaNiUm said:
Before even plugging in the limits this is clearly wrong, but I'm not finding any calculation errors.
What makes you think it is wrong? (Overkill, surely, but not wrong.) Your answer is in terms of density; to relate it to the more familiar equation in terms of mass, plug in \rho = m/V = m/(\pi r^2 z).

My logic was that if I integrated over r from the inner to outer radius I wouldn't have to do the problem in two separate parts (disk minus smaller disk).
That's fine. But unless this is an exercise in calculus, wouldn't it be easier to do it in two parts using the known formula for the rotational inertia of a disk?
 
I realize that my approach isn't necessarily the simplest. I'm just baffled as to why the answer is numerically different if I use eqn. (6) and plug in the density that was given in the problem; versus simplifying it into terms of mass like you suggested and then solving for said mass seperately and plugging that in. It seems like the equations should be yielding identical results if they are to describe the same quantity of the same system. Again - there's got to be something I'm just not seeing/understanding.

As per your second question: It probably would be easier but I'm supposed to be ``proving'' the formula as part of the process.

And thank you for replying! I appreciate you taking the time to help. :cool:
 
InSaNiUm said:
I realize that my approach isn't necessarily the simplest. I'm just baffled as to why the answer is numerically different if I use eqn. (6) and plug in the density that was given in the problem; versus simplifying it into terms of mass like you suggested and then solving for said mass seperately and plugging that in. It seems like the equations should be yielding identical results if they are to describe the same quantity of the same system. Again - there's got to be something I'm just not seeing/understanding.
Are you sure you are plugging numbers into your equation (6) correctly? I get the same answer either way.

Remember that each variable in the triple integral is evaluated independently. That means you'd get a value of:
I_G = \rho\,2\pi\,z\,\frac{r^4}{4} = \rho 2 \pi \frac{(0.01)}{4} (r_2^4 - r_1^4)
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K