Formula for integration of natural coordinates over an element

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formula for the integration of natural coordinates over a one-dimensional element, specifically focusing on the derivation and limitations of the formula provided in a textbook. Participants explore the mathematical underpinnings of the formula and its application in integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for integrating natural coordinates over a line segment, expressing concerns about the source and derivation of the formula.
  • Another participant suggests a substitution method to derive the integral, linking it to the Beta function and providing a connection to the Gamma function.
  • A later reply indicates that the hints provided are sufficient for them to understand the derivation process.
  • Another participant proposes an integration by parts approach for positive integers, leading to a formula for the integral involving factorials.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation of the formula, as various methods and approaches are discussed without a definitive resolution on the limitations or the source of the original formula.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions regarding the conditions under which the formula is valid, such as the requirements on the parameters α and β, and the implications of using positive integers in the integration process.

Arjan82
Messages
624
Reaction score
619
TL;DR
For FEM analysis use is made of elements and their natural coordinates. For integration my book provides a neat formula, but unfortunately without source.
In a textbook I own a formula is given for the integration of natural coordinates over an element. In this case it is a 1 dimensional element (i.e. a line segment) with coordinates ##x_i## and ##x_j##. The coordinate ##x## over the element is written as:
$$
x = L_1(x) x_i + L_2(x) x_j
$$

with
$$
L_1(x) = \frac{x_j - x}{L}\text{, }
L_2(x) = \frac{x - x_i}{L}
$$
with ## L= x_j - x_i##

It is stated, unfortunately without source, that:
$$
\int_L L_1^\alpha(x) L_2^\beta(x) dx = \frac{\alpha!\beta!}{(\alpha + \beta +1)!}L
$$
It then continues to show an example where ##x_i = 2## and ##x_j = 6## so that ##L_1(x) = (6-x)/4## and ##L_2(x) = (x-2)/4## and then computes the integral:
$$
\int_2^6 L_1^2(x) L_2(x) dx = 0.333...
$$
Using the long-hand method and the formula stated above. Which obviously give the same result. But where does this formula come from? How is it derived? I want to know the limitations of this formula (which I assume there are).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For \operatorname{Re}(\alpha) > -1, \operatorname{Re}(\beta) > -1 and x_j > x_i, substitute u = (x - x_i)/L to obtain
<br /> \frac{1}{L^{\alpha + \beta}}\int_{x_i}^{x_j} (x_j - x)^\alpha(x - x_i)^\beta\,dx <br /> =L\int_0^1 (1-u)^\alpha u^\beta\,du. The integral on the right is the definition of the Beta function B(\alpha + 1, \beta + 1). It can be shown from this and the integral representation <br /> \Gamma(z) = \int_0^\infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}\,dt valid for \operatorname{Re}(z) &gt; 0 that B(p,q) = \frac{\Gamma(p)\Gamma(q)}{\Gamma(p + q)}. Lastly, if n \geq 0 is an integer then \Gamma(n + 1) = n!.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Arjan82
Thanks! That's enough hints for me to figure it out :)
 
Alternatively, if \alpha and \beta are positive integers then set <br /> I(\alpha,\beta) = \int_0^1 (1-u)^\alpha u^\beta\,du and integrate by parts to obtain <br /> I(\alpha, \beta) = \frac{\beta}{\alpha + 1}I(\alpha+1,\beta-1) so that <br /> I(\alpha,\beta) = \frac{\alpha! \beta!}{(\alpha + \beta)!}I(\alpha + \beta,0) = \frac{\alpha! \beta!}{(\alpha + \beta + 1)!}.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arjan82

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K