DeSantis 1

Sarah DeSantis

Mr. Acre

AP Calculus

27 March 2017

Riemann Sums

As many mathematicians know, there are normally many different ways to solve a

problem. Some methods are faster than others while some prove to be more accurate. The same

goes for integrals. There are many ways to solve for the area under a curve such as Riemann

sums, the trapezoid rule, and Simpsons rule. A Riemann sum is used to find the area under a

curve by splitting the area into rectangles of equal width and adding up the areas of each

rectangle. The trapezoid rule is similar in the sense that it splits the area under a curve into

sections and adds the area of each section to get the total area, but it splits the area into

trapezoids rather than rectangles. Simpsons rule divides the area into parabolas and finds the

sum of each parabolas area. Simpsons rule is the most accurate of the three methods because it

approximates the area under a curve by using parabolas. The curve of a parabola better fits the

function and accounts for less error than the straight edges of a rectangle or a trapezoid.

While there are many ways to estimate the area under a curve, there are also many ways

to find the Riemann sum. There are upper, lower, left, right, and midpoint Riemann sums. Each

type of sum determines the rectangles height that is used to calculate its area. An upper Riemann

sum uses the uppermost y-value as the height while a left Riemann sum uses the leftmost y-value

as the height and so on.

 DeSantis 2

Figure 1. Upper Riemann Sum

Figure 1 shows the process of finding an upper Riemann sum for the function

4 3
f ( x )=(x3) +2( x3) 4 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5. The rectangles were

formed using the uppermost y-value which occurred at x=1 and x=5. The change in x, or the

width of each rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper

bound and dividing that by the number of rectangles. In this case, the change in x is 2 units. The

change in x is multiplied by each height to find the area of each rectangle, then those areas are

added together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 84 square units, which is an over

approximation because a lot of the area being counted is above the actual function.
 DeSantis 3

Figure 2. Lower Riemann Sum

Figure s shows the process of finding a lower Riemann sum for the function

f ( x )=(x3)4 +2( x3)34 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5. The rectangles were

formed using the lowermost y-value which occurred at x=3 and x=3.68. The change in x, or the

width of each rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper

bound and dividing that by the number of rectangles. In this case, the change in x is 2 units. The

change in x is multiplied by each height to find the area of each rectangle, then those areas are

added together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 16.24 square units, which is an

under approximation because a lot of the area underneath the function is not being counted.
 DeSantis 4

Figure 3. Left Riemann Sum

Figure 3 shows the process of finding a left Riemann sum for the function

f ( x )=(x3)4 +2( x3)34 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5. The rectangles were

formed using the leftmost y-value which occurred at x=1 and x=3. The change in x, or the width

of each rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper bound

and dividing that by the number of rectangles. In this case, the change in x is 2 units. The change

in x is multiplied by each height to find the area of each rectangle, then those areas are added

together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 36 square units.
 DeSantis 5

Figure 4. Right Riemann Sum

Figure 4 shows the process of finding a right Riemann sum for the function

4 3
f ( x )=(x3) +2( x3) 4 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5. The rectangles were

formed using the rightmost y-value which occurred at x=3 and x=5. The change in x, or the

width of each rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper

bound and dividing that by the number of rectangles. In this case, the change in x is 2 units. The

change in x is multiplied by each height to find the area of each rectangle, then those areas are

added together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 68 square units.

Figure 5. Midpoint Riemann Sum

Figure 5 shows the process of finding a midpoint Riemann sum for the function

f ( x )=(x3)4 +2( x3)34 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5. The rectangles were

formed using the midpoints of each section which occurred at x=2 and x=4. The change in x, or

the width of each rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the
 DeSantis 6

upper bound and dividing that by the number of rectangles. In this case, the change in x is 2

units. The change in x is multiplied by each height to find the area of each rectangle, then those

areas are added together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 24 square units.

Figure 6. Trapezoid Rule

Figure 1 shows the process of using the trapezoid rule for the function

f ( x )=(x3)4 +2( x3)34 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5 with 4 sections. The

trapezoids were formed using the edges of each section as bases and the change in x as the

height. The change in x was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper

bound and dividing that by the number of trapezoids. In this case, the change in x is 1 unit. The

change in x is multiplied by a half and the sum of both bases in order to find the area of each

trapezoid, then those areas are added together to get the total area. In this case, the total area is 38

square units.
 DeSantis 7

Figure 7. Simpsons Rule

Figure 7 shows the process of using Simpsons rule for the function

4 3
f ( x )=(x3) +2( x3) 4 ( x3 ) +5 along the interval from x=1 to x=5 with 4 sections. The

parabolas were formed using the edges of each section. The change in x, or the width of each

rectangle, was found by subtracting the lower bound of the interval from the upper bound and

dividing that by the number of sections. In this case, the change in x is 1 unit. The change in x is

multiplied by a third, which is then multiplied by the sum of the first height plus four times the

second height plus two times the third height plus four times the fourth height plus the fifth

height. In this case, the total area is 33.33 square units. This is the closest of each of these

approximations to the true area under the curve. The true area, found by using the definite

integral, is 32.8 square units. Simpsons rule is the most accurate because it accounts for the

curves in each section.

The mean value theorem for integrals is a method of finding the dimensions of a

rectangle thats area is equal to the total area under a curve. The meant value theorem states that
 DeSantis 8

if a function is continuous on an interval then there exists a number c in that interval such that

f ( x ) dx
f ( c )= a .
ba

Figure 8. Mean Value Theorem for Integrals

Figure 8 shows the process of using the mean value theorem for the same function used

above over two intervals in order to find the height of each rectangle such that the rectangles

area will equal the total area under the curve. In order to find the height of the two rectangles, the

integral of the function over the intervals must be divided by the lower bound of the interval

subtracted by the upper bound. In this case, the height of both rectangles was 8.2 units. The sum

of the rectangles areas is equal to the total area underneath the curve, 32.8 square units.

Table 1. Problem 6

t (seconds) 0 1 4 7 11 12
r(t) (ft/s) 5.7 4.0 2.0 1.4 0.5 0.4
 DeSantis 9

Table 1 shows the set of data that was used to complete problem 6. This data represents

the changing radius over time as the air inside a hot air balloon is heated. The problem states that

the radius of the balloon at t=7 is 32 feet.

Figure 9. Part A

Part a of problem 6 asks for an estimate of the radius of the balloon at t=7.2 using the

tangent line at t=7. The tangent line was found by taking the rate of change of the radius at t=7,

or the slope, and the coordinate (7, 32). The equation of the tangent line was

y=1.4 ( x7 ) +32 . To find the radius at t=7.2, 7.2 was plugged in for x and then solved to get

a radius of 32.28 feet. This radius would be greater than the true value of the radius at t=7.2

because the slope at t=7.2 would be less than 1.4. This is because the table above shows the

change of radius over time is downward sloping.

 DeSantis 10

Figure 10. Part B

Part b of problem 6 asks for the rate of change of the volume of the balloon with respect

3
to time at t=7. The volume of a sphere is given as the equation V =4 /3 r and the radius is

known to be 32 feet and the change in radius with respect to time is known to be 1.4 at t=7. The

derivative of the volume function was taken and the values for r and dr/dt were plugged in to find

dv/dt, or the rate of change of the volume with respect to time. At t=7 seconds, the volume of the

balloon is changing at 5734.4 pi cubic feet per second.

 DeSantis 11

Figure 11. Part C

Part c of problem 6 asks for a right Riemann sum with 5 subintervals indicated by the

12

data in the table to approximate r ' ( t ) dt . The area of each rectangle shown was found and
0

added up to find the total area underneath the curve. The total area was 16.6 feet, meaning that

from t=0 to t=12, the radius of the balloon grew a total of 16.6 feet. This answer is less than the

12

true value of r ' ( t ) dt because there is some area underneath the curve that is not accounted
0

for.

As demonstrated in this paper, there are multiple ways to find the area under a curve. This

gives mathematicians and students different approaches to solve problems and allows them to

decide whether or not they like a certain method more than another. Knowing each method is

beneficial because it gives someone options and ways to check their math when confronted with

a problem. Part of the beauty of math is that there is often not one concrete way to solve a

problem: there are often many roads that lead to the same conclusion and anyone can explore and

choose their own path.