MHB Simpsons formula and the volume of a pyramid frustum

jorgenhansen501
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Simpsons formula and the volume of a pyramid frustum

Normally I consider myself quite adept in mathematics, but I simply lack the right idea and/or the mathematical creativity to solve this assignmenent:

"Prove that the Simpsons formula V = 1/6 * h * (Ab + 4Am + At) can be used to calculate the volume of a pyramid frustrum."

V = Volume of the pyramid frustrum
h = height of the pyramid frustrum
Ab = Area of the "bottom" of the pyramid frustrum
Am = Area of a horisontal slice of the pyramid at 1/2*h
At = Area of the top of the pyramid frustrum.

---

My (fruitless) attempts at a solution:

The normal formula for the volume of a pyramid frustrum is V = 1/3 * h * (Ab + At + SQR(Ab*At))

Initially I thought the assignment could be quite easily solved by viewing the pyramid frustrum as a part of a (imaginary) large pyramid (0) consisting of the pyramid frustrum(1) and a smaller normal pyramid(2) on top of the frustrum:

1/6 * h * (Ab0 + 4Am0 + At0) = ( 1/6 * h * (Ab1 + 4Am1 + At1)) + ( 1/6 * h * (Ab2 + 4Am2 + At2))

In an earlier assignment I proved that Ab + 4*Am + At = 2*Ab holds true for pyramids and cones. Am for the big and the smal pyramid can therefore be written as: (Ab - At) / 4

Substituting this into the earlier equation gives:

(1/6) * h0 * (Ab0 + 4*((Ab0-At0)/4) + At0) = ( (1/6) * h1 * (Ab1 + 4Am1 + At1)) + ( (1/6) * h2 * (Ab2 + 4*((Ab2-At2)/4) + At2))

We should even remember that the top of the pyramid frustrum (At1) is the same as the botton of the top pyramid (Ab2) and that At2 will equal 0:

(1/6) * h0 * (Ab0 + 4*((Ab0-At0)/4) + At0) = ( (1/6) * h1 * (Ab1 + 4Am1 + Ab2)) + ( (1/6) * h2 * (Ab2 + 4*(Ab2/4))

As the bottom of the pyramid frustrum equals the bottom of the imaginary larger pyramid Ab0 will be equal to Ab1 and that At0 will be zero (as it is the very top of the imaginary pyramid)

(1/6) * h0 * (Ab1 + 4*(Ab1/4)) = ( (1/6) * h1 * (Ab1 + 4Am1 + Ab2)) + ( (1/6) * h2 * (Ab2 + 4*(Ab2/4))

However, after playing around with this for at couple of hours I seem to be getting nowhere.

I would really appreciate if anybody is able to offer some insight or just a hint at the solution!

Jorgen Hansen
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello, and welcome to MHB, Jorgen! (Wave)

Simpson's Rule is used to approximated a definite integral, so let's begins by setting up the actual integral.

Now, the area \(A\) of a particular cross section will vary as the square of a linear measure of the cross section, such as a side length or diagonal, which we can call \(r\). Hence

$$A=kr^2$$

$$A(0)=kr_0^2=A_b\implies r_0^2=\frac{A_b}{k}$$

$$A(h)=kr_h^2=A_t\implies r_h^2=\frac{A_t}{k}$$

Now, we know that along a vertical axis \(y\) from \(0\) to \(h\), we have:

$$y=\frac{h}{r_h-r_0}(r-r_0)\implies dy=\frac{h}{r_h-r_0}\,dr$$

Hence, the volume \(V\) of the frustum is:

$$V=k\frac{h}{r_h-r_0}\int_{r_0}^{r_h} r^2\,dr$$

Using Simpson's Rule with \(n=2\), we have:

$$V=k\frac{h}{r_h-r_0}\cdot\frac{r_h-r_0}{3\cdot2}\left(r_0^2+4\left(\frac{r_0+r_h}{2}\right)^2+r_h^2\right)=k\frac{h}{3}\left(r_0^2+r_0r_h+r_h^2\right)$$

We know there will be no error because we have a quadratic integrand.

Thus:

$$V= k\frac{h}{3}\left(\frac{A_b+\sqrt{A_bA_t}+A_t}{k}\right)=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_b+\sqrt{A_bA_t}+A_t\right)$$

Does that make sense?
 
  • Like
Likes alamin104
It makes perfect sense - and I really appreciate that you took the time to write such an elaborate answer.

However, the teacher has explicitly stated that the problem should be solved without the use of integrals... Hence my fruitless attempts shown earlier.

Since the Simpsons formula is about approximating the integral I cannot grasp the idea of using it without integrals, but I guess the teacher want us to develop some kind of higher understanding of the problem - which surely hasn't manifested itself in me yet...

I realize now that I should have stated the teachers requirement of not using integrals in the problem statement. Please accept my apology for that omission.

Again, your effort is truly appreciated

Jorgen Hansen
 
jorgenhansen501 said:
It makes perfect sense - and I really appreciate that you took the time to write such an elaborate answer.

However, the teacher has explicitly stated that the problem should be solved without the use of integrals... Hence my fruitless attempts shown earlier.

Since the Simpsons formula is about approximating the integral I cannot grasp the idea of using it without integrals, but I guess the teacher want us to develop some kind of higher understanding of the problem - which surely hasn't manifested itself in me yet...

I realize now that I should have stated the teachers requirement of not using integrals in the problem statement. Please accept my apology for that omission.

Again, your effort is truly appreciated

Jorgen Hansen

I didn't use integration to get the result, but we do need to know what we're approximating and so that's why I set up the integral but didn't actually integrate. The integration has already been done using parabolic arcs in Simpson's Rule which I applied.
 
I suppose we could begin by simply applying Simpson's Rule to state:

$$V=\frac{h}{3\cdot2}\left(A_b+4A_m+A_t\right)$$

Now, we need to express \(A_m\) in terms of \(A_b\) and \(A_t\). Suppose:

$$A(r)=kr^2$$

where:

$$A(r_0)=kr_0^2=A_b$$

$$A(r_h)=kr_h^2=A_t$$

And hence:

$$A\left(\frac{r_0+r_h}{2}\right)=k\left(\frac{r_0+r_h}{2}\right)^2=A_m$$

We then find:

$$A_m=\frac{k}{4}(r_0^2+2r_0r_h+r_h^2)=\frac{A_b+2\sqrt{A_bA_t}+A_t}{4}$$

And thus:

$$V=\frac{h}{6}\left(2A_b+2\sqrt{A_bA_t}+2A_t\right)=\frac{h}{3}\left(A_b+\sqrt{A_bA_t}+A_t\right)$$
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top