Conte - 1

Chris Conte
Mr. Acre
AP Calculus
March 23, 2015
Riemann Sums
In calculus, there are often a plethora ways of solving a particular problem.
For example, the area under a curve, the definite integral, has many ways of
being approximated. The existence of so many methods is rather intriguing, as
the real world is the same way: There is more than just one way to travel to a
destination. For this reason, when mathematicians sought out to determine how
to most efficiently approximate the area under a curve, they all came up with
different methods. Obviously, it is difficult to approximate the area under a shape
with curved edges. However, some mathematicians thought of methods that
involved slicing the curve into many common shapes whose area could be
approximated rather easily. There are also times when only data points, and not
an equation, are given. In either of these scenarios, using an approximation of
the definite integral is useful. There are many methods for approximating the
area under a curve, and some of the most famous methods are called Riemann
Sums, the trapezoid rule, and Simpsons rule.
Riemann Sums
Riemann Sums is a method used to the estimate the definite integral of a
function. Riemann Sums divide the curve into a certain number of rectangles
whose areas are calculated and then summated to solve for the area under the

Conte - 2
curve. These rectangles have a width of

x , which is the length of any given

subinterval. From problem to problem, the length of

will vary as it hinders

on the value of n, the number of sub intervals, and the total length of the interval,
from upper to lower bound of integration. The value of

will be equal to the

length of the entire closed interval in which the area is desired for divided by the
number of sub intervals. For example, if the limits of integration had a range of
four units, two rectangles with a

value of two units could be used. The

heights of these rectangles are determined by an f(x) value picked from a uniform
position within each subinterval: left, right, midpoint, lower, or upper. Therefore,
there are five types of Riemann Sums.

f(x1)

f(x2)

Figure 1. Example of Riemann Sum

In a Left Riemann Sum, the value of x that is used to find f(x), the height of
that subintervals rectangle, in each subinterval is the left bound x in each sub
interval. Shown in figure 1, the values that determine the height of the rectangles
have been denoted by a star. Right Riemann sums are the same, except they
use the right bounded x value. For Midpoint Riemann Sums, the average of the

Conte - 3
left bound x value and the right bound x value, in each subinterval is taken (as
this is the midpoint of the rectangles width) is used to determine the x value
that corresponds with f(x). Lower Riemann Sums use the lowest f(x) value in
each interval as the height. This point could coincidentally be the left bound x
value, the right bound x value, or the midpoint, but it could also be any other
arbitrary point. Reasonably so, Lower Riemann sums provide the absolute
minimum estimation of the area using a Riemann Sum possible, and therefore
are not ideal when looking to estimate the area under a curve. They are always
underestimations of the actual definite integral. The last kind of Riemann Sum is
the Upper Riemann Sum. Contrary to Lower Riemann Sums, they use the
highest f(x) value in each subinterval as the height of each rectangle.
Consequently, they provide the absolute maximum estimation of the curves area
using Riemann Sum possible. Upper Riemann Sums overestimate the actual
definite integral. While Upper and Lower Riemann Sums are the least accurate,
the midpoint Riemann Sum is usually the most accurate.
The equation for Riemann Sums is fairly simple, considering it is the
summation of the area of many adjacent rectangles. As previously stated, the
width or base of all the rectangles is

x , and the height of each of the

rectangles is determined by an f(x) value, based on which type of Riemann sum

is being used. A general equation for Riemann Sums is:
Rn= x f ( x 1 ) + x f ( x 2 ) + x f ( x 3 ) +
The value of n, the number of subintervals, determines the number of
products that must be added as well as the overall accuracy of the estimate.

Conte - 4
When n is very large,

x is extremely small, and the approximation for the

area is more accurate.

Trapezoid Rule
The trapezoid rule is very similar to Riemann Sums. The trapezoid rule
also estimates the definite integral by dividing the interval into several
subintervals that take on the form of a shape whose are can be calculated more
easily. The difference is that trapezoids estimate the area in each subinterval
rather than rectangles. When using the trapezoid rule,

is now the height

of each trapezoid, and the left and right bounds of the interval become the two
bases of the trapezoids.

f(x3)

f(x1)

f(x2)

Figure 2. Example of the Trapezoid Rule

First of all, when the trapezoid rule is used to estimate the area of graph
that is concave up, an overestimate of the definite integral will be provided. By
looking at Figure 2 at the interval where x is between 3 and 5, this idea is clear. If
the graph is concave down, the trapezoid rule will always underestimate the

Conte - 5
definite integral. The value for

x is simply the difference between the x value

of the upper bound and lower bound in each subinterval, which will be identical in
each subinterval, and the height of the trapezoid will be the average the upper
bounds and lower bounds f(x) values. The lengths of each respective base of
each trapezoid are the values of f(x1) and f(x2). The labels on Figure 2 help
explain this concept. The equation for the trapezoid rule, therefore, is similar to
the equation for Riemann sums, as it is just adding together the area of several
trapezoids:
T n= x

f x 1 ) +f ( x 2 )
f ( x2 ) + f ( x 3)
f ( x3 )+ f ( x4 )
+ x
+ x
+
2
2
2

((

) (

) (

Simpsons Rule
Simpsons rule is another method used to estimate the area under a
curve. Simpsons Rule differs from the other two due to its use of small parabolic
regions, rather than common shapes, meaning its the only method of the three
accounting for the function being curved.

Conte - 6
Figure 3. Simpsons Rule example
Unlike the previous two methods, Simpsons Rule has certain parameters,
as the value of n, the number of subintervals, must be an even value in order for
the formula to work. This is due to the nature of the Simpsons Rule formula. The
first f(x) value, a in the definite integral, and the last f(x) value, b in the definite
integral, are multiplied by one. The f(x) value created by the first subinterval is
multiplied by four, and the next is multiplied by two, and these values alternate
until the last is reached, where, as mentioned earlier, the f(x) value is multiplied
by one. Therefore, the general form of the equation looks like this:
S n=

x
(f ( x 0 ) +4 f ( x 1 ) +2 f ( x 2 ) +4 f ( x 3 )+ ...+ 2 f ( x n2 ) + 4 f ( xn1 ) + f ( x n ))
3
Comparison of the Methods
As mentioned throughout, each of the three methods that have been

examined are efficient ways of approximating a definite integral. All three

methods create subintervals, whose areas are estimated by creating different
shapes whose area can be calculated more easily than the curves area itself:
Riemann Sums use rectangles, Trapezoid rule uses trapezoids, and Simpsons
rule uses a parabolic shape. Riemann Sums and the Trapezoid rule can be used
for any number of subintervals, while Simpsons Rule can only be used if there is
an even number of subintervals. In terms of accuracy, Riemann Sums is the
least accurate, then the trapezoid rule is more accurate, and Simpsons rule
tends to be most accurate of the three. By reviewing the figures depicting each of
these methods, this conjecture is clear. Lower and Upper Riemann Sums in
particular, provide relatively inaccurate approximations in comparison to the other

Conte - 7
methods. Thinking about each methods, the relatively accuracies make sense.
Riemann Sums are least accurate as the rectangle accounts for but one f(x)
value in an interval that surely fluctuates. The trapezoid rule uses two f(x) values
and averages them while Simpsons Rule actually accounts for concavity and the
inconsistently changing value of f(x) in using parabolic shapes. However, no
matter which method is chosen, the overall accuracy is impacted by the number
of subintervals: When n is very low, the approximation is less accurate but is
more accurate when n is very high.

Riemann Sums Examples

Given the function f(x) = (x-3)4 + 2(x-3)3 - 4(x-3) + 5, the five types of
Riemann Sums, left, right, midpoint, lower, upper, will be used to estimate the
definite integral on the interval [1,5]. For all of the examples, there will be 2
subintervals, meaning

will have a value of 2. Each of the methods begins

with the necessary graph that shows the rectangles whose area is being
calculated for each and is followed by the mathematical manipulation used to
solve for the areas.
Left Riemann Sum:

Conte - 8
Figure 4. Left Riemann Sum
The calculations are as follows:
R2= xf ( x 1 ) + xf ( x 2 )

R2= xf ( 1 ) + xf ( 3 )

R2=213+25

R2=36 square units

Right Riemann Sum:

Figure 5. Right Riemann Sum

The calculations are as follows:
R2= xf ( x 1 ) + xf ( x 2 )

R2= xf ( 3 )+ xf ( 5 )

R2=68 square units

Midpoint Riemann Sum:

Figure 6. Midpoint Riemann Sum

R2=25+229

R2=26+ 10

Conte - 9
R2= xf ( x 1 ) + xf ( x 2 )

R2= xf ( 2 ) + xf ( 4 )

R2=28+24

R2=24 square units

Lower Riemann Sum:

Figure 7. Lower Riemann Sum

R2= xf ( x 1 ) + xf ( x 2 )

R2= xf ( 3 )+ xf ( 3.6777 )

R2=25+23.1226

R2 16.25 square units

Upper Riemann Sum:

Figure 8. Upper Riemann Sum

R2= xf ( x 1 ) + xf ( x 2 )
R2=84 square units

R2= xf ( 1 ) + xf ( 5 )

R2=213+229

Conte - 10

Comparison with Trapezoid Rule

Using the same f(x) from the Riemann Sum Examples, the area from the
closed interval [1, 5] will be estimated with the trapezoid rule. Rather than two
sub intervals, the trapezoidal approximation will use four subintervals yielding a
x

value of one, rather than two. The graph, along with the corresponding

trapezoids for each subinterval, has been drawn below in Figure 9. Further, the
calculations for the trapezoidal approximation of the definite integral are shown.

Figure 9. Trapezoidal Rule with Four Intervals

f x 1 ) + f ( x2 )
f ( x 2 ) +f ( x 3 )
f ( x3 )+ f ( x4 )
f ( x4)+ f ( x5 )
+ x
+ x
+ x
2
2
2
2

T 4= x

((

) (

) (

) (

T 4= x

( f ( 1) +2 f ( 2) )+ x ( f ( 2) +f2 ( 3) )+ x( f ( 3)+2f ( 4 ) )+ x ( f ( 4) +2 f (5 ) )

Conte - 11

T 4=1

8+5
5+ 4
4+29
+ 1(
+1 (
+1 (
( 13+8
)
)
)
2
2
2
2 )

T 4=10.5+6.5+ 4.5+16.5

T 4=1

( 212 )+1( 132 )+1( 92 )+ 1( 332 )

T 4=38 squareunits

Three of the four trapezoids overestimate the definite integral (as shown in
Figure 9), while one of them (the second one) just slightly underestimates the
definite integral. This is due to the fluctuating concavity of the graph within the
interval from x = 1 to x = 5. This results in an overall overestimation. Despite
being overestimated, the trapezoidal approximation is more accurate than the
approximations of the Riemann Sums (not including the approximation from Left
Riemann Sum that appears to be the lone exception. In addition to the trapezoid
rule being generally more accurate, this approximation seems to be more
accurate due to its incorporation of a larger n value. Obviously, these accuracies
are being determined based off of how close the approximated area is to the
actual value of the definite integral in this interval.

Mean Value Theorem in Integral Form

The mean value theorem (MVT) of integrals states that if a function,

f ,

is continuous in the interval [a, b], then there exists a number, c, in the closed
interval [a,b] such that:

f (c)

1 b
a f (x)dx
b a

This means that the area calculated by the definite integral is equal to the area of

multiplying f(c) and

a rectangle created by

x , the difference the upper and

lower bounds of integration. Using the MVT for integrals, the area under the

Conte - 12
curve of the previously stated function f(x) from the interval [1, 5] will be found
using two separate subintervals: [1, 3] and [3, 5]. The calculation of c 1 is for the
first rectangle in the interval [1, 3], and the calculation of c 2 is for the second
rectangle in the interval [3, 5]. Keep in mind that c is representative of the x value
that yields the necessary f(x) value:
3

f ( c1 ) =

1
( ( x3 )4 +2 ( x3 )34 ( x3 ) +5 ) dx
31 1

1
4
1 ( x3 ) ( x3 )
2
f ( c1 ) =
+
2 ( x3 ) + 5 x (3)
2
5
2

) (

1 ( 33 ) ( 33 )
1 ( 13 ) (13 )
2
2
f ( c1 ) =
+
2 ( 33 ) +53
+
2 ( 13 ) +51
2
5
2
2
5
2

1
f ( c1 ) = ( ( 15 )(1.4))
2

f ( c1 ) =8.2

1
f ( c2 ) =
( ( x3 )4 +2 ( x3 )34 ( x3 ) +5 ) dx

31 3

3
4
1 ( x3 ) ( x3 )
2
f ( c2 ) =
+
2 ( x 3 ) + 5 x (5)
2
5
2

f ( c2 ) =

) (

1 ( 53 ) ( 53 )
1 ( 33 ) ( 33 )
2
2
+
2 ( 53 ) +55
+
2 ( 33 ) +53
2
5
2
2
5
2

Conte - 13
1
f ( c2 ) = ( ( 31.4 ) (15 ) )
2

f ( c2 ) =8.2 The graph bellows shows a plot of the

function along with the two rectangles that can be used to solve for the definite
integral on this interval. The sum of the areas of the two rectangles will not be an
approximate of the definite integral. Instead, this area will be equal to the value
of the definite integral.

Figure 10. MVT Integral Form Example

The calculation of the area of the definite integral using the MVT for integrals is
shown below:
A= x( f ( c 1 ) +f ( c2 ) )

A= (2 )( 8.2+8.2 )

A=216.4

A=32.8 square units

Therefore, the actual area under this curve on the [1,5] interval is 32.8
square units. This finding verifies the belief that the Left Riemann Sum may have
actually been a better approximation than the trapezoid rule. Due to the curvature
of this function, the Left Riemann Sum actually overestimated, and then
underestimated, to similar extents so that the approximation was relatively close
to the value of the definite integral.
Applying to a Sample Problem

Conte - 14
The radius of a spherical balloon, in feet, is modeled by a twicedifferentiable function r of time t, where t is measured in minutes. For 0 < t < 12
the graph is concave down. The radius of the balloon is 32 feet when t = 7.
a) Estimate the radius of the balloon when t = 7.2: This will be accomplished
using the value of r(7) and approximation of how much the radius would have
changed based off of the r(t) value that was provided. The calculation can be
seen below:
r ( 7.2 ) r ( 7 ) +r ' ( 7 ) t

r ( 7.2 ) r ( 7 ) +r ' ( 7 ) (7.27 )

r ( 7.2 ) 32+1.40.2

r ( 7.2 ) r ( 7 ) +r ' ( 7 )0.2

r ( 7.2 ) 32.28 feet

The nature of the concavity of this graph (given as concave down when t is
greater than 0 but less than 12) suggests that this method would have
overestimated the true radius.

b) Find the rate of change of the volume of the balloon with respect to time at t =
7:
4
V = r2
3

dV 4
dr
= 3 r 2
dt 3
dt

dV
=4 10241.4
dt

dV
dr
=4 r 2
dt
dt

dV
=4 3221.4
dt

dV
=18015.15 cubic feet per minute The derivative of the
dt

equation for volume was taken, simplified, and then the appropriate known or
previously calculated values were plugged in. The volume of the balloon is
increasing by 18015.15 cubic feet per minute.

Conte - 15
12

c) Use a Right Riemann Sum with five subintervals to estimate

r ' ( t ) dt :
0

R5= x r ' ( t 1 ) + x r ' ( t 2 ) + x r ' ( t 3 ) + x r ' ( t 4 )+ x r ' ( t 5 )

R5=1r ' ( t 1 ) +3r ' ( t 2 ) +3r ' ( t 3 ) + 4r ' ( t 4 ) + 1r ' ( t 5 )
R5=14 +32+31.4+ 40.5+10.4

R5=16.6 feet The five subintervals were

the five different sets of points next to each other on the table of six pairs of
points. Because a Right Riemann sum was being used, the

value was

determined by subtracting the left (lower t value) point from right (higher t value)
point. Each

was multiplied by the corresponding r(t) value, or the one

with the right side t value. This approximation gives the change of the radius in
feet from when t = 0 until t =12 minutes.

d) Is the previous approximation greater than or less than the actual definite
integral? The approximation is less than the actual value of the definite integral of

12

r ' ( t ) dt

. The reason for this is that the graph is concave down, and the given

interval provides a negative slope, so when taking the right bound value all the
rectangles are inscribed under the curve, which results in an underestimate.
Just as in real life, there are many ways to reach a destination or solve a
problem. Even though the definite integral is the most accurate way to determine
the area, there are several other methods have been created to solve such a
problem. Rather than thinking of this as boring and unnecessary, think of it like a

Conte - 16
road trip: You may find that there is a road block on the path that is the quickest
or easiest, but knowing every route to your destination may ensure that you can
reach the destination. Regardless of the method of choice, increasing the value
of n (therefore decreasing the width of each subinterval) results in a more
accurate approximation of the definite integral. Overall, Riemann Sums provide
the least accurate approximation while Simpsons Rule provides the most
accurate.