Averages, Arc Length, Speed and Surface Area
In this chapter we point calculus at four geometric problems:
- finding the average height of a cable, or the average temperature over a time interval;
- finding the length of a curve;
- finding the speed of a particle that travels along a curve in the plane; and
- finding the surface area of certain solids.
Every one of them is attacked in exactly the same way: chop the object into small pieces, approximate each piece by something we already know how to measure (a rectangle, a straight line segment, the frustum of a cone), add the approximations up to get a Riemann sum, and let . Basically, the whole chapter is the fundamental theorem of calculus being aimed at geometry; the only new content is deciding what the little pieces should be in each case.
5.1 The average value of a function
Suppose a cable is suspended between two poles, so that each end of the cable is metres above the ground and the lowest point of the cable is metres above the ground. What is the average height of the cable above the ground? Clearly the answer is somewhere between and metres, but 'somewhere between' is not an answer. Recall from MATH1131 that a suspended cable is always the graph of a function of the form
over some interval , where is a constant depending on the tension in and the mass of the cable, and where the coordinate system has been chosen conveniently. So the question becomes: what is the average value of on ?
Averaging finitely many numbers is easy, but a function takes uncountably many values on , so we have to say what we even mean. Divide into subintervals of equal length, sample the height of the graph in the th subinterval by choosing a point in it, and take the ordinary arithmetic mean of the sampled heights:
As increases, should get closer and closer to what we intuitively call the average height of the graph. Now comes the trick that turns this into an integral: multiply and divide by ,
Notice what the last sum is: is the height and is the width of the th rectangle in the usual picture, so it is a Riemann sum for on . Hence, provided is Riemann integrable,
This limit is what we take as the definition.
Note
Definition
Suppose that is integrable on a closed interval . Then the average value of on is defined by the formula
Rearranging this formula gives a second way to read it: is the unique constant with
Geometrically, is the unique -value for which the rectangle of width and height has the same area as the region under the graph of . Basically, the average value is the height you would flatten the graph down to if you were allowed to redistribute the area but not create or destroy any of it.
Because the integral measures signed area, so does the average value. For example the average value of over is , not because is small but because the hump below the axis exactly cancels the hump above it. Over half a period the answer is much more interesting.
Example. Find the average value of on .
By the definition,
Therefore the average value of on is . As a sanity check, the graph sits between and and spends most of its time up near the top, so an average a bit under is exactly what you would expect; a common wrong guess is , which is the average of the endpoint and peak values, not of the function.
Example. The cable illustrated at the start of this section is the curve
where the -axis runs along the ground, the -axis passes through the vertex of the curve, and . Find, to the nearest centimetre, the average height of the cable above the ground.
Set . The interval has length , so
The remaining of an inverse is unwound with the identity :
where the positive root is correct because and is positive there. Hence
Therefore the average height of the cable above the ground is about metres, which does indeed sit between and as predicted. Note that the fact that the -axis runs along the ground is special to this example; for a general hanging cable you have to work out where the ground is before you start.
Example. The air temperature , measured in degrees Celsius hours after noon, is given by
Find the average temperature between noon and 5 p.m.
Noon is and 5 p.m. is , so
Therefore the average temperature between noon and 5 p.m. is C. Do not average the endpoint values and and call it a day; that gives , which is wrong, because the temperature does not change linearly. The endpoint average is only ever correct for a straight line.
We saw in MATH1131 that a continuous function on a closed interval attains its maximum and minimum values (the maximum-minimum theorem). The next result says such a function also attains its average value.
Note
Theorem (The mean value theorem for integrals)
Suppose that is continuous on . Then there is a number in such that
Proof. Define by
By the fundamental theorem of calculus, is continuous on , differentiable on , and . So satisfies the hypotheses of the ordinary mean value theorem, which supplies a with
But , and , so this reads
which is the claim (in the form ).
Basically, the mean value theorem for integrals says the horizontal line from the rectangle picture must actually cut the graph somewhere strictly inside the interval. Continuity is doing all the work here; drop it and the theorem is false. For instance the step function equal to on and at has average value ... but a function equal to on and on has average on and never takes the value anywhere.
Example. Verify the mean value theorem for integrals for on by finding the point explicitly.
The function is continuous, and its average value is
So we need with , i.e. (rejecting , which is not in the interval). Therefore the theorem holds with . Notice that is not the midpoint of the interval; the parabola is steeper on the right, so the average value is achieved a little past halfway.
A more general version of this theorem appears in the tutorial problems for Chapter 4, and it is what is used to prove the Lagrange form of the remainder in Taylor's theorem — so this innocent-looking result is doing real work later in the course.
5.2 The arc length of a curve
Suppose and are two points in . The distance between them is
and if and are the endpoints of a straight line segment then we define the length of that segment to be this distance. A line segment is a very special curve; the point of this section is to measure the length of curves that bend. The idea is the obvious one — approximate the curve by a chain of little straight segments, whose lengths we can already compute, and take a limit as the segments get short.
5.2.1 An intuitive derivation of the arc length formula
Suppose is a curve in which can be expressed in parametric form as
where and are differentiable functions of . We also assume the parametrisation is chosen so that the moving point does not retrace its steps, either forwards or backwards. For , let denote the arc length of the partial curve
so that and is the number we want.
Take a small piece of the curve and approximate it by a secant. Fix with , let be a small nonzero real number, and consider the two points and . The length of the arc from to is , and it is approximately the length of the chord , which the distance formula gives as
Dividing both sides by (and pushing the inside the square root, where it becomes ),
The approximation improves as shrinks, so assuming that is a differentiable function, letting gives
By the fundamental theorem of calculus,
for some constant , and putting gives , so . Taking recovers the length of the whole curve.
This is a heuristic derivation, not a proof. A rigorous treatment would first define arc length (as the supremum of the lengths of inscribed polygons) and then evaluate some genuinely awkward Riemann sums; we do not do that here. Three hypotheses were quietly used and are worth naming, because they are exactly the ones that get violated in exam questions: and must be differentiable, the parametrisation must trace the curve once and only once, and itself is assumed differentiable.
5.2.2 Arc length for a parametrised curve
Collecting the derivation above: if a curve is given parametrically by
where and are differentiable functions of , then its arc length is
Basically, is the length of an infinitesimal chord, obtained from Pythagoras applied to the horizontal displacement and the vertical displacement ; integrating adds all the little chords up.
Example. Find the arc length of one arch of the cycloid
(This is the curve traced by a point on the rim of a wheel of radius rolling along the -axis, and it is closely related to the 'curve of fastest descent' from MATH1131.) Differentiating,
so
Before substituting this into the formula it is best to express as a square, since we are about to take a square root. The double angle identity with gives
Now , not — but is positive for , so here the naive square root causes no problems. Hence
Therefore one arch of the cycloid has length . Notice how clean that is: the arch spans a horizontal distance of and the answer is exactly , with no in sight at all.
Example. Use the parametrisation , with to find the circumference of a circle of radius . What goes wrong with the parametrisation , on the same interval?
For the first parametrisation, and , so
which is the circumference we expect. For the second, and , and the same computation gives
which is twice the circumference. The reason is that as runs from to , the point goes around the circle twice; the integral faithfully reports the total distance travelled, which is not the length of the curve. To use this parametrisation correctly you would integrate from to .
For a closed curve (or any curve at all), check that your parametrisation traverses it exactly once before integrating; the formula cannot tell the difference between a long curve and a short curve walked twice.
5.2.3 Arc length for the graph of a function
Most curves you meet are given as rather than parametrically, but that is just a special case: parametrise the graph of on by
Then and , so the parametric formula immediately gives . Renaming the variable of integration , as one usually does, the arc length of the graph of on is
Notice immediately that , since the integrand is at least : the curve is never shorter than the interval it spans, with equality only for a horizontal line. That is the cheapest sanity check available on any arc length answer, and it costs nothing to apply.
Example. Calculate the length of the arc for .
Here , so and
Therefore the arc length is . The chord from to has length , and the curve should be slightly longer than the chord; it is, by about .
Example. Find the arc length of for .
Differentiating with the chain rule, , so
The square root is now trivial (and , so no absolute values are needed), giving
Therefore the arc length is exactly units.
That example is worth pausing on. Arc-length integrands in this course are always engineered so that collapses to a perfect square, or so that a Pythagorean or hyperbolic identity flattens it; if yours does not collapse, you have almost certainly made an algebra slip — go back and check before you start hunting for exotic substitutions. The reason is that is hopeless for almost every you could write down: even leads to , which needs a hyperbolic substitution from the substitution table, and leads to an elliptic integral that has no elementary antiderivative at all.
Example. Find the arc length of for .
Differentiating, , so
where the middle term flipped sign from to precisely because of the . Since the bracket is positive, so
Therefore the arc length is , comfortably more than the span . This is the standard shape of a hand-made arc length question: is of the form or , so that the cross term in is exactly and the repairs the square.
Example. Find the arc length of the catenary
A catenary is the shape of a hanging cable, which is why this function keeps reappearing. Here , and the hyperbolic Pythagorean identity does the collapsing for us:
Therefore the catenary has arc length units. Notice how this is the only function whose arc length integrand simplifies without any factoring at all — the identity is built into it, which is one reason the hyperbolic functions were invented in the first place.
Example. Hence find the length of the suspended cable of Section 5.1, namely on where .
Comparing with the general catenary, forces , and the interval endpoint is . So the formula gives
reusing the value computed earlier. Therefore the cable is metres long. As a sanity check, the poles are metres apart, so the cable is longer than the gap it spans — as it must be, since it sags.
5.2.4 Arc length for a polar curve
Suppose a curve is described in polar coordinates by for . Since
this is a parametrisation of the curve, with as the parameter, so there is nothing new to derive — just some algebra to do. By the product rule,
and hence
where the cross terms cancelled and mopped up the rest. Writing as and as , the arc length of a polar curve is
Basically, moving through an angle carries you around the circle and outwards, and these two displacements are perpendicular, so Pythagoras gives the little bit of arc. The term is not optional and it is not in disguise; forgetting it is the classic polar arc length mistake (it would say that a circle , on which , has length zero).
Example. Find the length of the cardioid .
The full cardioid is traced once as runs from to . Here , so
using the double angle identity with in the last line. Now be careful with the square root: , and is positive on but negative on . The cardioid is symmetric about the -axis, so the cleanest fix is to integrate over the top half and double:
Therefore the cardioid has length units. If you drop the absolute value and integrate straight from to you get , which is obviously nonsense; whenever a half-angle appears inside a square root, check the sign on the second half of the range.
Example. Find the length of the spiral for .
Here , so the integrand is and
Therefore the length is units — the exponential spiral grows fast enough that a single turn is already enormous.
Example. The spiral , where , winds infinitely many times around the origin. Is its total arc length finite? Explain.
Compute the arc length of the segment first, and take a limit afterwards. Here , so
As we have , so . Therefore the total arc length is finite and equals units. This is a curve of infinite extent (in the sense that it never stops winding) with finite length; the windings shrink geometrically, and a geometric series converges. Keep this example in mind — the very last example of the chapter is its evil twin.
5.3 The speed of a moving particle
In Chapter 4 of the MATH1131 calculus notes we discussed the speed of a particle moving along a straight line. Now we can handle a particle moving along any curve in the plane, because we can measure the length of that curve.
Suppose a particle moves in the plane with position at time . The distance travelled from time zero to time is exactly the arc length of the path traversed in that time,
By definition the speed of is the rate of change of distance travelled with respect to time, so by the fundamental theorem of calculus the speed is
If we bundle the position into a vector , then is the velocity vector and the formula just says : speed is the length of the velocity. Basically, arc length and speed are the same computation read in two directions — the arc length integrand is the speed, and distance travelled is the integral of speed:
Example. A stone is thrown horizontally from the deck of the Sydney Harbour Bridge at metres per second. Its position seconds after the throw is
where is the height above the water. Find the speed of the stone an instant before it hits the water.
Differentiating, and , so the speed at time is
The stone hits the water when , that is when , i.e. . Hence
Therefore the stone is travelling at about metres per second just before impact. Notice that the horizontal component of the velocity is a constant throughout — gravity only ever changes the vertical component — so the speed never drops below .
Example. A projectile is fired from an elevated cannon. Its horizontal distance (in metres) from the cannon and height (in metres) above the ground, exactly seconds after firing, are
where is the time of impact.
(a) Find .
(b) Find the speed of the projectile immediately prior to impact.
(c) What was the average height of the projectile above the ground during this period?
(a) Impact happens when :
so or ; discarding the negative time, seconds.
(b) Here and , so at we have and
Therefore the projectile is travelling at about metres per second immediately prior to impact.
(c) This is a job for the average value formula applied to on :
Therefore the average height of the projectile was metres. Note carefully that this is the average height with respect to time, which is what the phrasing asks for; averaging with respect to horizontal distance would be a different integral (though here it happens to agree, since is a linear function of ).
For completeness, the distance actually flown is metres, which needs the substitution followed by a hyperbolic substitution from the substitution table; it is marked as extension material precisely because the algebra is grim, and it is a good illustration that a physically natural arc length usually does not simplify.
Since speed is the derivative of distance travelled, the two quantities determine each other, and it is natural to ask for a parametrisation in which the speed is always . Such a parametrisation is said to be by arc length: if for all then , so the parameter is the distance travelled along the curve.
Example. A particle moves on the circle , . Find its speed and the distance travelled by time , and hence reparametrise the circle by arc length.
Differentiating, and , so
a constant. Hence , i.e. . Substituting this back into the position,
and it is easily checked that this new parametrisation has speed . Therefore the arc length parametrisation of the circle of radius is , and running from to traverses it once — recovering the circumference for free. In general the arc-length parametrisation of a circle of radius is ; the inside is exactly what makes the speed rather than .
Example. The position of a particle at time is
(a) Find a formula for the speed .
(b) What curve does the trajectory trace out, and what is its length?
(c) How far does the particle travel during the time interval ?
(a) Write , so that and . By the chain rule,
and hence
Therefore ; in particular the particle is momentarily at rest whenever is an integer, and fastest when is a half-integer.
(b) Since takes every value in , the angle ranges over , and then sweeps out the upper half of the unit circle. So the trajectory is the semicircle of centre and radius lying in the upper half-plane, whose length is half the circumference, namely .
(c) Distance travelled is the integral of speed, and has period with . Hence
Therefore the particle travels units in the first three seconds. Compare (b) and (c): the curve is only units long, but the particle covers units, because it sweeps back and forth along the same semicircle three times. This is the same trap as the doubly-traversed circle of Section 5.2.2, seen from the other side: arc length is a property of the curve, distance travelled is a property of the motion, and only a parametrisation which does not retrace makes them equal.
5.4 Surface area
Finding the surface area of a general surface in is genuinely hard, and the machinery needed for it (the partial derivatives of Functions of several variables, together with double integrals) is second year material. In this section we restrict to surfaces obtained by rotating a plane curve about one of the axes, which is exactly the case where a one-variable integral suffices.
Everything rests on one piece of geometry. The frustum of a right circular cone is what you get by slicing the top off a cone parallel to its base.
Note
Fact
Given a frustum of slant height and radii and , the area of its curved surface is given by
This is proved by cutting the cone open and flattening it into a sector of a circle; it is an exercise in the tutorial problems, and it needs nothing beyond the formula for the area of a sector. Basically, , i.e. (circumference at the average radius) (slant height) — the frustum is a rectangle of width and height , rolled up.
5.4.1 An heuristic derivation for the surface area of a surface of revolution
Suppose a curve has parametrisation
We assume that the curve lies in the upper half-plane (more precisely , meeting the -axis at only finitely many points if at all), and that is simple: if then , i.e. the curve does not cross itself. Rotating about the -axis produces a surface of revolution, and we want its area.
The derivation runs exactly parallel to the arc length one. Let denote the area of the surface formed by rotating the partial curve , and assume is differentiable. Fix , let be small and nonzero, and consider and . Then is the area swept out by the arc from to , which for small is approximately the area swept by the chord — and a rotated chord is precisely a frustum, of radii and and slant height equal to the length of . So the frustum formula gives
Dividing by ,
Since is differentiable at it is continuous there, so as , and the limit is
Applying the fundamental theorem of calculus and using to kill the constant of integration exactly as before,
and putting gives the area of the whole surface.
5.4.2 Surface area formulae and examples
Assume throughout that lies in the upper half-plane and is simple, and that all the derivatives written down exist. Rotating about the -axis, the area of the surface of revolution is
if is given parametrically by with ;
if is the graph on ; and
if is the polar curve with . Only the first of these needs deriving; the other two follow from it via the parametrisations , and , used in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4. Rotating about the -axis instead, the parametric formula becomes
with the graph version obtained the same way.
Look at what changed between the last two boxes: the square root is identical in every formula — it is always the arc length element, i.e. the speed — and the only thing that varies is the factor in front. That factor is : it is when you rotate about the -axis and when you rotate about the -axis. Writing out of habit while rotating about the -axis is the single most common error in this entire topic. The reason is geometric rather than algebraic: the point traces a circle whose radius is its distance from the axis, and radius is the circumference of that circle.
Finally, note that these formulae give the area of the surface of revolution only. If the question asks for the surface area of a solid, you must also add the areas of any circular caps at the ends.
Example. Find the surface area of a sphere of radius , by rotating the semicircle , , about the -axis.
Differentiating with the chain rule,
so that
Hence , and the crucial cancellation happens:
Therefore the surface area of a sphere of radius is , as it should be. The same answer falls out of the parametric formula with , , : there and . Note the limits , not : the lower semicircle would sweep out the same sphere a second time and double the answer.
The constant integrand in that calculation is worth staring at, because it says something remarkable. The area of the piece of the sphere lying between the planes and (with ) is
which depends only on the width of the slab and not on where it sits. So a thin slice cut near the equator and an equally thin slice cut near the pole have exactly the same area: near the pole the circles are smaller, but the surface is more steeply inclined, and the two effects cancel exactly. This is sometimes called Archimedes' hat-box theorem, and it is the reason a cylindrical map projection of the globe preserves area.
Example. A solid is formed by rotating the curve , , about the -axis. Find the surface area of the solid, making sure that every face is accounted for.
The solid has two faces: the truncated paraboloid, and the flat circular cap at where the curve has height . For the paraboloid, with we get , so
where in the fourth line the absorbed the factor of . Notice how pulling the outside inside the root is what made the integrand elementary; that manoeuvre is standard whenever and both appear. The cap is a disc of radius , so
Therefore the total surface area of is
square units. Read these questions carefully: "the area of the surface of revolution" and "the surface area of the solid" are different numbers, and the cap is worth marks.
Example. Find the area of the surface generated when , , is rotated about (a) the -axis and (b) the -axis.
Both parts share the same square root: , so .
(a) Rotating about the -axis, the distance to the axis is , so with the substitution , (and when , when ),
Therefore the area is square units.
(b) Rotating about the -axis, the distance to the axis is , and the integral is a completely different (and much nastier) beast: the spare that the substitution needs is no longer available, so it requires or from the substitution table, followed by a reduction formula for . Compare this with the -substitution versus trigonometric-substitution discussion in Integration Techniques — one factor of is again the entire difference. So the answer to the question 'which axis?' changes not only the number but the technique.
Example. Find the area of the surface formed when one arch of the cycloid , , , is rotated about the -axis.
From the cycloid arc length example (with ), , which is non-negative on . Also , so the parametric formula gives
where either by the odd-power substitution or straight from the reduction formula for . Therefore the surface area is square units. Notice how writing in terms of before integrating turned the whole integrand into a single power of ; if you leave it as you end up doing more work for the same answer.
Example. Find the area of the surface formed when the polar curve , , is rotated about the -axis.
From the cardioid arc length example, on . Also and , so the polar formula gives
Therefore the surface area is square units. The extra factor here is , not : the distance from the point to the -axis is the -coordinate , not the radius . That is the same 'distance to the axis' rule as before, wearing polar clothing.
We finish with a simple but genuinely startling example. Recall from high school that the volume of the solid formed when the graph of is rotated about the -axis is
Example. (Gabriel's horn.) Let be given by , and rotate its graph about the -axis. Find the volume of the resulting solid and the area of the resulting surface.
The surface produced is known as Gabriel's horn, after the biblical figure, or Torricelli's trumpet, after Evangelista Torricelli, a pupil of Galileo. It is infinitely long, so both quantities have to be handled as improper integrals: compute over and let .
For the volume,
and . So the solid has finite volume, exactly cubic units.
For the surface area, , so
Finding an antiderivative for this integrand looks unpleasant, but we do not need one — we only need to know whether the improper integral converges, and for that a comparison suffices. Whenever ,
and diverges, so by the comparison test for integrals (Chapter 8 of the MATH1131 calculus notes) the integral for diverges too. Therefore Gabriel's horn has infinite surface area but bounds a solid of finite volume .
This is the painter's paradox: to paint the outside of the horn you would need infinitely much paint, yet you can fill the whole horn with cubic units of paint and thereby coat the inside surface completely — just pour the paint in and tip out whatever is not touching the wall. The resolution is that 'painting' in the first sense means covering the surface with a coat of some fixed positive thickness, which requires infinite volume, while the paint filling the horn thins out to zero thickness as you go down the tube; a mathematical surface has no thickness at all, so the two notions of 'painted' are simply not the same thing.
Compare this with the spiral at the end of Section 5.2, which was infinitely wound but had finite length. Infinite extent tells you nothing on its own about whether length, area or volume comes out finite; only the integral knows, and that is the point of the whole chapter.