14

I have an ellipsoid centered at the origin. Assume $a,b,c$ are expressed in millimeters. Say I want to cover it with a uniform coat/layer that is $d$ millimeters thick (uniformly).

I just realized that in the general case, the new body/solid is not an ellipsoid. I wonder:

  1. How can I calculate the volume of the new body?

  2. What is the equation of its surface?

I guess it's something that can be calculated via integrals but how exactly, I don't know.

Also, I am thinking that this operation can be applied to any other well-known solid (adding a uniform coat/layer around it). Is there a general approach for finding the volume of the new body (the one that is formed after adding the layer)?

peter.petrov
  • 12,568
  • What is the new body? – user41736 Mar 08 '16 at 12:44
  • @user41736: If the thickness is measured along normals to the surface, then the outer surface of the cover may indeed not be an ellipsoid. I'm not sure. It isn't obvious, at any rate; I would have to be convinced by an argument if it is an ellipsoid. The problem is the requirement that the cover be uniformly thick. Just dilating a covered sphere won't do it, because the dilation is larger along the ellipsoid's longer axis than it is along one of its shorter axes. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 12:59
  • @MPW Exactly... that's why it's not an ellipsoid, I am sure it's not (unless a=b=c, I think). I know that volumes are generally calculated using integrals (like areas in 2D) but it's been a while since I've been dealing with such things. I cannot even construct an equation of the surface of the outer body. I will think some more about it though, but decided to post it here anyway. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 13:11
  • @peter.petrov: I think it probably isn't an ellipsoid, but it could be possible that it's an ellipsoid that just isn't similar to the original. Stranger things have happened. But, as I said, I would have to be convinced. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 13:13
  • 4
    This is called an offset surface. You can obtain its parametric equations from the parametric equations of the ellipsoid (sphere in spherical coordinates, stretched), by computing the normal vector and adding it. Unfortunately the analytical expressions aren't simple (obtaining an implicit equation is scary), and chances are low that the volume integral is tractable. Anyway, the extra volume must be close (if not just equal) to the ellipsoid area times the thickness. –  Mar 08 '16 at 13:15
  • @MPW Oh, I see. OK, that's what I meant, it's not an ellipsoid similar to the original. I am not sure about the stronger statement that it's not an ellipsoid at all. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 14:00
  • @peter.petrov: it is not an ellipsoid at all. –  Mar 08 '16 at 14:05
  • Yves, the extra volume must be larger than area times thickness because (handwavily) the outer surface has larger area than the inner. Consider the only really tractable case, where a=b=c=r; then area times thickness is 4 pi r^2 h and delta volume is 4/3 pi [(r+h)^3-r^3] = 4 pi r^2 h + 4 pi r h^2 + 4/3 pi h^3. (For the corresponding thing in 2d there's a nice way to see the extra term as corresponding to an extra circle of radius h. I think there's something similar but hairier in 3d. Think about polyhedra first.) – Gareth McCaughan Mar 08 '16 at 14:42
  • Er, actually the "something similar but hairier" is exactly what achille hui describes in the currently-top-rated answer. – Gareth McCaughan Mar 08 '16 at 14:44
  • In 2D, is an ellipse thickened by a constant still an ellipse? If not then the ellipsoid cannot be an ellipsoid ... – Zubin Mukerjee Mar 08 '16 at 14:57
  • 2
    @ZubinMukerjee: Clearly not. Consider the degenerate ellipse formed by $x^2+\frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1$ as $b \to 0$. This tends to a line segment between $(-1, 0)$ and $(1, 0)$, and a uniform blanket around that evidently is not an ellipse. – Brian Tung Mar 08 '16 at 17:21
  • @BrianTung I am not sure the degenerate case is the best approach to convince somebody in Zubin's statement (that it's not an ellipse). But anyway, seems everyone here is convinced already. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 18:54
  • 1
    @peter.petrov: I suppose what's intuitive varies from person to person. :-) – Brian Tung Mar 08 '16 at 18:59
  • This problem was inspired by https://projecteuler.net/problem=449 – peter.petrov Dec 11 '22 at 22:31

5 Answers5

17

Let $\mathcal{E} = \{ (x,y,z) \mid \frac{x^2}{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} + \frac{z^2}{c^2} \le 1 \}$ be the ellipsoid at hand.

The new body $\mathcal{E}_d$ is the Minkowski sum of $\mathcal{E}$ and $\bar{B}(d)$, the closed ball of radius $d$. ie.,

$$\mathcal{E}_d = \{ p + q : p \in \mathcal{E}, q \in \bar{B}(d) \}$$

Since $\mathcal{E}$ is a convex body, the volume of $\mathcal{E}_d$ has a very simple dependence on $d$. It has the form:

$$\verb/Vol/(\mathcal{E}_d) = V + A d + 2\pi \ell d^2 + \frac{4\pi}{3}d^3\tag{*1}$$

where $V$, $A$ and $\ell$ is the volume, surface area and something known as mean width for $\mathcal{E}$.

The problem is for an ellipsoid, the expression for $A$ and $\ell$ are very complicated integrals.
If I didn't make any mistake, they are: $$\begin{align} A &= abc\int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^{\pi} \sqrt{(a^{-2}\cos^2\phi + b^{-2}\sin^2\phi)\sin^2\theta + c^{-2}\cos^2\theta} \sin\theta d\theta d\phi\\ \ell &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{\pi}\sqrt{(a^2\cos^2\phi + b^2\sin^2\phi)\sin^2\theta + c^2\cos^2\theta} \sin\theta d\theta d\phi \end{align}\tag{*2}$$

Good luck for actually computing the integral.

Update

When $a = b$, the integral simplify to something elementary.

For the special case $a = b \ge 1, c = 1$, by a change of variable $t = \cos\theta$, we have:

$$\begin{align} A &= 4\pi a\int_0^1\sqrt{(1 + (a^2 - 1)t^2}dt\\ &= \frac{2\pi a}{a^2-1}\left(\sqrt{a^2-1}\sinh^{-1}(\sqrt{a^2-1}) + a(a^2-1)\right) \\ \ell &= 2\int_0^1 \sqrt{a^2 + (1-a^2)t^2}dt = \frac{a^2}{\sqrt{a^2-1}}\sin^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{a^2-1}}{a}\right) + 1 \end{align} $$ For a test case, when $a = b = 2, c = d = 1$, we find

$$\begin{align} \verb/Vol/(\mathcal{E}_1) - V &= A + 2\pi \ell + \frac{4\pi}{3} = \frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{3}}\left( 12 \sinh^{-1}(\sqrt{3}) +8 \pi +34\sqrt{3}\right)\\ &\approx 60.35475634605034 \end{align} $$ Matching the number on Euler project 449 that motivates this question.

IMHO, I don't think Euler project expect one to know

  1. the volume formula $(*1)$.
  2. or how to compute the integrals in $(*2)$.

There should be a more elementary way to derive the same result for the special case $a = b$.
That part will probably stamp on the foot of Euler project. I better stop here.

achille hui
  • 122,701
  • Here $\bar{B}(d)$ means the closed ball of radius d centered at the origin? Can you check the integrals? I may try solving them later since I have several concrete values for a,b,c. Actually $(a,b,c)=(3,3,1)$. Maybe that makes the problem somewhat easier? – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 14:06
  • @peter.petrov yes. it is the closed ball centered at origin. – achille hui Mar 08 '16 at 14:08
  • 1
    OK... Very interesting (that the new body is equal to that Minkowski sum). – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 14:09
  • @achillehui Should I read this to try to understand what's going on? Or is it just the standard sum? I'm confused. Also I think you could copy-paste your last equation as an answer to this question. – Zubin Mukerjee Mar 08 '16 at 14:10
  • 2
    @ZubinMukerjee ellipse and ball are regular enough geometric objects, ordinary Minkowski sum should be enough. For that question, one probably should derive the equation. It comes down to given any unit vector $\vec{u} = (u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ and ellipsoid $\mathcal{E} = { (x_1, \ldots, x_n ) : \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i/a_i)^2 \le 1 }$, the maximum value of $\vec{x}\cdot\vec{u}$ for $\vec{x}\in \mathcal{E}$ equals to $\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n (a_i u_i)^2 }$. – achille hui Mar 08 '16 at 14:28
  • You're right, seems one is not expected to know (1) and (2). Most of the people just solved this problem using the values (3,3,1) i.e. for that particular case. So I guess I made the problem much harder by generalizing it (with my formulation) here. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 16:21
5

If $d$ << any of ( a,b,c ) you need to just find the surface area (using the elliptic integrals in Wikipedia) and multiply by $d$. The loss of accuracy using a paint layer thickness between the ellipsoid and Huygen's wavelet sort of body is of no avail or worth in practical engineering work.

It is just like: For a thin tube of radii $ b-a =t$ we take cross section area to be $2 \pi a t$ or $2 \pi b t$ or $ \pi (a+b) t$ but do not care for the second order differences or inaccuracies that are lost when not considering a more correct:

$$ \pi ( b^2-a^2). $$

EDIT 1:

If I am tasked to compute spray paint volume etc., I would settle for an approximation like:

$$ A \approx \frac{12 \pi a b c }{(a+b+c)} $$

EDIT 2:

If d is not negligibly small, the outside anyhow being not an ellipsoid and we may take average of semi-axes and the approximation may be:

$$ Vol. \approx \frac{12 \pi \bar a \bar b \bar c d }{(\bar a+\bar b+ \bar c)} $$

For a = b =2, c=d=1 it gives V = 54.3737.

Since it is a harmonic mean it would be a lower bound.

Narasimham
  • 40,495
3

Let $(x,y,z)=(a\sin u \cos v, b\sin u \sin v,c\cos u)$ on the ellipse $\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}+\frac{z^2}{c^2}=1$, then the unit normal vector is

$$\mathbf{n}= \frac{\displaystyle \left(\frac{x}{a^2},\frac{y}{b^2},\frac{z}{c^2} \right)} {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{x^2}{a^4}+\frac{y^2}{b^4}+\frac{z^2}{c^4}}}$$

Then new surface will have coordinates of

$$(x',y',z')=(x,y,z)+d\mathbf{n}$$

which no longer to be a quadric anymore.

In particular, if $d <-\frac{1}{\kappa} <0$ where $\kappa$ is one of the principal curvatures, then the inner surface will have self-intersection.

If we try reducing the dimension from three (ellipsoid) to two (ellipse) and setting $a=1.5,b=1$, the unit normal vectors (inward) won't pointing on the straight line (i.e. the degenerate ellipse $\displaystyle \frac{x^{2}}{0.5^{2}}+\frac{y^{2}}{0^{2}}=1$).

enter image description here

And also the discrepancy of another case

Ng Chung Tak
  • 18,990
  • Seems this is more like an answer to the doubts if the new body is an ellipsoid or not, rather than an answer to the original question. Right? Anyway, thanks for taking the time to think and write this note. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 15:40
2

Hint:

Take a unit sphere of radius $1$ and cover it with a uniform layer of thickness $t$. The total volume is $\dfrac43\pi(1+t)^3$.

If you dilate the sphere non-uniformly with factors $a<b<c$, you get the ellipsoid with a layer of a thickness comprised between $at$ and $ct$. With $t=\frac da$, the layer is everywhere thicker than $d$; with $t=\frac dc$, the layer is everywhere thinner than $d$.

From these considerations you can deduce the bracketing

$$\dfrac43\pi abc(1+\frac dc)^3<V<\dfrac43\pi abc(1+\frac da)^3.$$

2

Edit: This proof is incorrect, and the proposed answer is wrong. As pointed out by @TonyK in the comments, the computation of the gradient is wrong.

I will leave the answer here, nonetheless, since seeing an incorrect proof is often as instructive as seeing a correct one.

Hint: As it turns out, the "thickened" ellipsoid is indeed another ellipsoid. You can show with some effort that if the original ellipsoid is $$\left(\frac xa\right)^2 + \left(\frac yb\right)^2+ \left(\frac zc\right)^2=1$$ then the externally ellipsoid externally thicked by $\epsilon$ has an outer surface $$\left(\frac x{a+\epsilon}\right)^2 + \left(\frac y{b+\epsilon}\right)^2+ \left(\frac z{c+\epsilon}\right)^2=1$$ So, the volume computation for the new surface is essentially the same as the computation for the original surface, assuming you can do that. The two ellipsoids are not similar unless $a=b=c$.

Addendum: This is the computation I used. Originally, I just did it for an ellipse. But the computation is just as easy for an ellipsoid. So suppose we are given an ellipsoid $E$ $$\left(\frac xa\right)^2 + \left(\frac yb\right)^2+ \left(\frac zc\right)^2=1\tag{1}$$ and let us consider the ellipsoid $E'$ $$\left(\frac x{a+\epsilon}\right)^2 + \left(\frac y{b+\epsilon}\right)^2+ \left(\frac z{c+\epsilon}\right)^2=1\tag{2}$$ Consider the point $P(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ on $E$ (WLOG, we work in the first octant where all coordinates are positive) and form the point $$Q((1+\tfrac{\epsilon}a)x_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}b)y_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}c)z_0)$$

Claim 1: $P$ and $Q$ are $\epsilon$ units apart.

Proof: $$|Q-P|^2 = |((1+\tfrac{\epsilon}a)x_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}b)y_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}c)z_0)-(x_0,y_0,z_0)|^2$$ $$=|((\tfrac{\epsilon}a)x_0,(\tfrac{\epsilon}b)y_0,(\tfrac{\epsilon}c)z_0)|^2$$ $$=\epsilon^2|(\tfrac{x_0}a,\tfrac{y_0}b,\tfrac{z_0}c)|^2$$ $$=\epsilon^2((\tfrac{x_0}a)^2 + (\tfrac{y_0}b)^2 + (\tfrac{z_0}c))^2 = \epsilon^2$$ since $P$ lies on $E$. $\blacksquare$

Claim 2: Q lies on $E'$.

Proof: Write $Q$ as $$Q=((1+\tfrac{\epsilon}a)x_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}b)y_0,(1+\tfrac{\epsilon}c)z_0)$$ $$= \left((a+\epsilon)\tfrac{x_0}a,(b+\epsilon)\tfrac{y_0}b,(c+\epsilon)\tfrac{z_0}c\right)$$

Then $Q$ satisfies equation $(2)$ because $P$ satisfies equation $(1)$ since by hypothesis $P$ lies on $E$. $\blacksquare$

Claim 3: $Q$ lies on the line normal to $E$ at $P$.

Proof: Regarding $(1)$ as $F(x,y,z)=1$, we may form the gradient vector $\nabla F(x_0,y_0,z_0) = (2x_0/a,2y_0/b,2z_0/c)$ which is normal to $E$ at $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$. Thus an equation of the line normal to $E$ at $P$ is

$$(x,y,z) = (x_0,y_0,z_0) + t(\tfrac{x_0}a,\tfrac{y_0}b,\tfrac{z_0}c)$$ which may be written $$(x,y,z) = \left( (1+\tfrac ta)x_0,(1+\tfrac tb)y_0,(1+\tfrac tc)z_0\right)$$

Taking $t=\epsilon$, we recover $Q$, so $Q$ lies on this line. $\blacksquare$

Claims 1, 2, and 3 together show that $E'$ is obtained by thickening $E$ by $\epsilon$ units. Each point on $E$ is moved outward by $\epsilon$ units along the normal at that point to form $E'$. This concludes our proof.

MPW
  • 43,638
  • I thought it was thickened by a constant, not by a factor of $\epsilon$. If that's right then I don't think the second equation you have is correct. – Zubin Mukerjee Mar 08 '16 at 14:12
  • It was thickened by a constant d indeed. I also don't think the new body is just a new ellipsoid with a'=a+d, b'=b+d, c'=c+d. I tried that already, and got wrong answer. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 14:12
  • It is thickened by a constant, not by a multiplicative factor. I went through the computation and this is what I got. The equations are correct, I showed it rigorously, @ZubinMukerjee . Form the equation of the normal line, then find the point on the normal which is $\epsilon$ units away from the original surface. These points satisfy the equation I wrote. It is not at all obvious, you must go through the details. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 14:14
  • @MPW Okay, I will try to work it out. – Zubin Mukerjee Mar 08 '16 at 14:20
  • 1
    @ZubinMukerjee https://projecteuler.net/problem=449 It's not that, if it was that then the number 60.35475635 would be the difference between the two ellipsoid volumes. Very easy to compute, but does not match that number 60.35475635 (I get 58.643062867 when taking that difference). So I guess something is wrong here. I didn't want to spoil the Project Euler problem though by linking to it from here. Based on the answers so far, seems I will need to read up a bit (which is good) before being able to solve it. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 14:22
  • 1
    @ZubinMukerjee: I will post my computations as an edit to this answer. Unless I've done something stupid, I don't think it's wrong. Give me a few minutes to write it up. Please look at it and see if you see a hole in my argument. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 14:41
  • @MPW: Though I haven't checked carefully, I believe you'll find the segment $PQ$ is everywhere orthogonal to the inner/original ellipsoid if and only if $a = b = c$, so its length does not measure the distance between the ellipsoidal shells. – Andrew D. Hwang Mar 08 '16 at 15:15
  • @AndrewD.Hwang: Please see my addendum. I think I have show that $Q$ is on the normal at $P$. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 15:31
  • @MPW: Your calculation is wrong. Your mistake is in measuring the thickness $d$ along the "radius" vector $(x,y,z)$, which is not the same as the normal to the surface. To see this, take the limiting case as $b$ and $c$ tend to $0$: the ellipsoid "tends to" a 1-dimensional line from $(-a,0,0)$ to $(a,0,0)$, and the thickened ellipsoid "tends to" a cylinder of radius $d$, with hemispherical caps. – TonyK Mar 08 '16 at 15:36
  • @TonyK: I don't see this. The thickened point is the point on the original surface plus thickness $\times$ normal vector. The normal vector is based at the surface point, and points in the direction of the normal line there, so the thickened point lies on the normal line. Can you elaborate? – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 15:41
  • @MPW See the cases of ellipse in my post – Ng Chung Tak Mar 08 '16 at 15:41
  • Ah...the problem is the segment is not perpendicular to the outer shell (unless $a = b = c$), so its length doesn't measure the perpendicular distance between the shells. (I suppose the real issue is, it's "well known" that the parallel curve to a non-circular ellipse is not an ellipse, so unfortunately there has to be a gap somewhere.) – Andrew D. Hwang Mar 08 '16 at 15:51
  • 2
    The gradient $\nabla F(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ is $(2x_0/a^2,2y_0/b^2,2z_0/c^2)$, not $(2x_0/a,2y_0/b,2z_0/c)$. (So the segment is not perpendicular to the original surface either, @AndrewD.Hwang.) – TonyK Mar 08 '16 at 15:57
  • @TonyK: DOH! You have found the error in my proposed proof, thanks. Now I accept your rebuttal. Thanks for taking time to look it over. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 16:00
  • It did take me a while! But, you know, when somebody is wrong on the Internet... – TonyK Mar 08 '16 at 16:10
  • @MPW Thanks for the time and effort. Despite the proof being incorrect, that's a lot of work and I really appreciate it. Leaving the answer is a very good idea, I think. Thanks a lot. – peter.petrov Mar 08 '16 at 16:12
  • Glad to help, sorry it was flawed. My philosophy is to always leave answers, even if they're wrong. Removing wrong answers is contrary to the whole idea of learning from other people's responses. – MPW Mar 08 '16 at 17:24