Skip to main content

Center of Mass

Introduction

Any object can be balanced using its center of mass. Theoretically, we could balance a car if we wanted to. We would look at the weight of the car and try to balance it in the middle. We know that if the weight is not balanced correctly the car would tip on one side. This process can be applied to any object we want. Fortunately, there is a formula that can help on finding the center of mass of any object making it a little easier than trial and error. Trying to find the center of mass of a car can be a bit hard since the mass can be different throughout the car. Looking at something entirely symmetric we can predict the center of mass would be in the middle. So, to start off we will look at something simple where the mass is constant throughout the entire object but not symmetric. We will be looking at the object in the image below and find the center of mass.



We can see that the object looks like a house that is mostly symmetric with a door that is slightly to the side.



To have a better understanding we will imagine the object on the coordinate plane. This allows us to see that the center of mass is a coordinate point with a x- and y- value. These points can be found by finding the moments of x and y and the mass of the object. The formula to find the center of mass is \[ Center\ of\ Mass = \left(\frac{M_y}{Mass},\frac{M_x}{Mass}\right)\] To find the x-coordinate we need to find the moment of y and the total mass of the entire object. The formula to find the moment of y is \[M_y = \int_{a}^{b}x*\rho*f(x)*dx\] \(\rho\ \) is the density, in our example the density is constant so it will eventually cancel out with the \(\rho\ \) in the mass when we calculate the x-coordinate. The points a and b are the starting and ending points corresponding to the axis. The f(x) is the total length of the object from the points a and b. To calculate the moment of x uses the same formula as above with some slight changes corresponding the y-axis.

Compute



With the image on the right, we can now see all the points that we need. We can see that this object isn't symmetric so to make this easier we can divide this object into more workable shapes. We can divide this object up into a triangle, square and a rectangle.



The first thing we need to do is find the two lines for the triangle. With the points we can use the slope formula to find the slope then use the slope-intercept form to find the b-value and the final equation for the line. The two lines that we get are \begin{align*} y &= x+1 \\ y&= -x+2 \end{align*} \(M_y\) can now be calculated. We can add and subtract the moments of y that we find. Which allows us to add \(M_y\) values of the triangle and square and subtract the rectangle. \begin{align*} M_y&= \int_{0}^{.5}(\rho*x*(x+1))dx\ + \int_{.5}^{1}(\rho*x*(-x+2)) dx\ +\ \int_{0}^{1}(\rho*x*(1-0))\ dx\ -\ \int_{.15}^{.4} (\rho*x*(.5-0))\ dx \\ &= \rho\int_{0}^{.5}(x^2+x)\ dx\ +\ \rho\int_{.5}^{1} (-x+2x)\ dx\ +\ \rho\int_{0}^{1} x\ dx\ -\ \rho\int_{.15}^{.4} .5x\ dx \\ &= \rho\left.\frac{x^3}{3}+\frac{x^2}{2}\right\vert_{0}^{.5}\ +\ \rho\left.\frac{-x^3}{3}+x^2\right\vert_{.5}^{1}\ +\ \rho\left.\frac{x^2} {2}\right\vert_{0}^{1}\ -\ \rho\left.\frac{.5x^2}{2}\right\vert_{.15}^{.4} \\ &= \rho\frac{1}{6}\ +\ \rho\left[\left(-\frac{1}{3}+1\right)-\left(\frac{5}{24}\right)\right]\ +\ \rho\frac{1}{2}\ -\ \rho\left(\frac{1}{25}- \frac{9}{1600}\right)\ \\ M_y&= \frac{349}{320}\rho\ =\ 1.090625\rho \end{align*} \(M_x\) can be found using the same process but now the bounds would be in terms of y and we will integrate with respect to x. The lines that we found earlier would now be \begin{align*} x &= y-1 \\ x&= 2-y \end{align*} \begin{align*} M_x&= \int_{0}^{1}(\rho*y*(1-0))dy\ + \int_{1}^{1.5}(\rho*y*[(2-y)-(y-1)])\ dy\ -\ \int_{0}^{.25}(\rho*y*(.4-.15)\ dy\ \\ &= \rho\int_{0}^{1}y\ dy\ +\ \rho\int_{1}^{1.5} (-2y^2+3y)\ dy\ -\ \rho\int_{0}^{.25} .25y\ dx\ \\ &= \rho\left.\frac{y^2}{2}\right\vert_{0}^{1}\ +\ \rho\left(\left.\frac{-2y^3}{3}+\frac{3y^2}{2}\right)\right\vert_{1}^{1.5}\ -\ \rho\left.\frac{.25y^2}{2}\right\vert_{0}^{.25} \\ &= \rho\frac{1}{2}\ +\ \rho\left[\left(-\frac{9}{4}+\frac{27}{8}\right)-\left(-\frac{2}{3}+\frac{3}{2}\right)\right]\ -\ \rho\frac{1}{128}\ \\ M_x&= \frac{301}{384}\rho\ =\ 0.7838541\rho \end{align*} The last thing we need to find is the mass to calculate the center of mass. \begin{align*} Mass&= \int_{0}^{.5}(\rho*(x+1))dx\ + \int_{.5}^{1}(\rho*(-x+2)) dx\ +\ \int_{0}^{1}(\rho*(1-0))\ dx\ -\ \int_{.15}^{.4} (\rho*(.5-0))\ dx \\ &= \rho\left(\left.\frac{x^2}{2}+ x \right)\right\vert_{0}^{.5}\ +\ \rho\left(\left.\frac{-x^2}{2}+2x\right)\right\vert_{.5}^{1}\ +\ \rho\left.x\right\vert_{0}^{1}\ -\ \rho\left. .5x\right\vert_{.15}^{.4} \\ &= \rho\frac{5}{8}\ +\ \rho\frac{5}{8}\ +\ \rho1\ -\ \rho\frac{1}{8} \\ Mass&= 2.125\rho \end{align*} We know have the \(M_y\), \(M_x\) and the mass so, we can now calculate the center of mass for our object. \[ Center\ of\ Mass = \left(\frac{M_y}{Mass},\frac{M_x}{Mass}\right) = \left(\frac{1.090625\rho}{2.125\rho},\frac{0.7838541\rho}{2.125\rho}\right) = (.5132,.3688)\]

Why this Object

The image on the left has marked the center of mass. I chose this shape because it was mostly symmetrical making the computations easier allowing us to focus on the process. I added the rectangle hole which further allowed us to see how that can change the center of mass from the expected one. I was also surprised that the center of mass was lower than what I expected it to be. The dimensions of this object are 1.5x1 inches with the width of 0.2 inches.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do Over: Integration Over a Region in a Plane

Throughout the semester we have covered a variety of topics and how their mathematical orientation applies to real world scenarios. One topic we discussed, and I would like to revisit, is integration over a region in a plane which involves calculating a double integral. Integrating functions of two variables allows us to calculate the volume under the function in a 3D space. You can see a more in depth description and my previous example in my blog post, https://ukyma391.blogspot.com/2021/09/integration-for-over-regions-in-plane_27.html . I want to revisit this topic because in my previous attempt my volume calculations were incorrect, and my print lacked structural stability. I believed this print and calculation was the topic I could most improve on and wanted to give it another chance. What needed Improvement? The function used previously was f(x) = cos(xy) bounded on [-3,3] x [-1,3]. After solving for the estimated and actual volume, it was difficult to represent in a print...

Knot 9-31

Knot 9-31 A knot is mathematics is defined as a closed, non-self-intersecting curve that is placed in three dimensions and cannot be the "unknot". The main difference between a knot in the real world and a known in mathematics is that a knot in mathematics does not contain any extra strands. The example following will help visualize this. Today, I have specifically chosen knot 9-31 from the Knot Atlas. This knot is very unique and contains some very interesting properties that we are going to look into. The Crossing Number For my knot today, I chose knot 9-31 from the Knot Atlas. This knot contains 9 crossings! The Unknotting Number The unknotting number is exactly what is sounds like. This is the minimum number of times the knot must be passed through itself to untie it. Luckily, the Knot Atlas is super useful and provides the unknotting number for us, but I still...

Do Over: Integration for Over Regions in the Plane

Introduction Earlier in the semester, we visited the topic of integration for over region regions in the plane. This was our first experience with taking integration in the third dimension. To do this, we had to use double integrals to calculate the volume of a region between two surfaces. This topic seems relatively straightforward and anyone who has taken a higher calculus class knows of double integrals. Today, we are going to revisit this topic for a couple of reasons. Why Double Integrals Again? As mentioned before, I am revisiting this topic for a couple of reasons. One of the main reasons is due to how the 3D print turned out. Due to the function, I chose, the final rectangular prism was stand alone. When printing, this resulted in a sloppy prism that lacked structural integrity. The image below is a reference to my original design that includes the prism that had the issue. The main cause of ...