Circumference of an Ellipse

Geometric Formulas: Contents || Ask Dr. Math || Dr. Math FAQ || Search Dr. Math

[Back to Ellipse & Parabola Formulas]

Preliminaries
The circumference C of an ellipse must be computed using calculus. To do this, we set up
a Cartesian coordinate system. We put the origin at the center of the ellipse, the x-axis
along the major axis, whose length is 2a, and the y-axis along the minor axis, whose
length is 2b. The eccentricity e is defined by
0 <= e = sqrt(a2-b2)/a < 1.
Then the equation of the ellipse is
x2/a2 + y2/b2 = 1, a >= b > 0.
Now the formula for computing the arc length of any curve given by the parametric
equations x = f(t), y = g(t), over the range c <= t <= d is
d
s = INTEGRAL sqrt[(dx/dt)2+(dy/dt)2] dt.
c

Derivation

For the above ellipse, we can use the parametric equations

x = a sin(t),
y = b cos(t),
0 <= t <= 2 ,
C = s,
dx/dt = a cos(t),
dy/dt = -b sin(t).
Then
2
C = INTEGRAL sqrt(a2cos2[t]+b2sin2[t]) dt.
0
We can use the 4-fold symmetry of the ellipse to rewrite this as
/2
C = 4 INTEGRAL sqrt(a2cos2[t]+b2sin2[t]) dt.
0
This can be further rewritten, using cos2(t) = 1 - sin2(t), and the definition of the
eccentricity e, as
/2
C = 4a INTEGRAL sqrt(1-e2sin2[t]) dt.
0
Now this integral is a famous one. It is called a "complete elliptic integral of the second
kind." It is one of those integrals that cannot be expressed in closed form in terms of the
familiar functions of calculus, except if e = 0, when we have a circle. That means that this
is the simplest formula possible for the circumference of a general ellipse.

Another way to write this is

C = 4aE( /2,e).

Evaluation

This integral can be evaluated numerically, of course. Another way to compute its value
is using an infinite series. Set
x = (a-b)/(a+b).
Then
infinity
C = (a+b)(1 + SUM [(2n-2)!/(n![n-1]!22n-1)]2x2n),
n=1

C = (a+b)(1 + x2/4
+ x4/64
+ x6/256
+ 25x8/16384 + ...).
This series converges pretty rapidly, especially when x is small, that is, when a and b are
close together, that is, when e is small.

Example

If a = 15, b = 6, e = sqrt(21)/5, and x = 3/7, you find

C = (15+6) (1 + 9/196
+ 81/153664
+ 729/30118144
+ 164025/94450499548
+ 2893401/18512297918464 + ...),

= 21 (1 + 0.045918367
+ 0.000527124
+ 0.000024205
+ 0.000001737
+ 0.000000156 + ...),

= 21(3.1415926536)(1.046471589),

= 69.039336580,
approximately. With six terms, we get 7 significant figures of accuracy for this value of x
(the correct answer being 69.03933778699452855...), even though a and b are not close
together (and e = 0.916515... is not very small).

Approximation

The approximate formula

C = 2 sqrt((a2+b2)/2)
can be found in Mathematical Tables from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 10th
ed. (1954), p. 315.

The idea seems to be to use 2 r, but for r use the root-mean-square of the semi-major and
semi-minor axes. Then a > r > b, so one shouldn't be too far off.

In fact,

2 sqrt[(a2+b2)/2] = (a+b) (1 + x2/2 - x4/8 + ...),

so the first order term is right, and the second order term is double what it should be, so
this is not too awful an approximation, but not very good, either. It's about as good as
using r = (a+b)/2.

Better would be to use

C ~~ (sqrt[(a2+b2)/2] + [a+b]/2),
= (a+b)(1 + x2/4 - x4/16 + ...),
which agrees in both first and second order terms. If x4/16 is negligibly small, then this
gives right answers, whereas the original approximation does only if x2/4 is negligible.

A short search of the Dr. Math archives turned up the following approximation due to
Ramanujan:

C ~~ (3a + 3b - sqrt[(a+3b)(b+3a)])

This is even better, because

(3a + 3b - sqrt[(a+3b)(b+3a)]) = (a+b)(1 + x2/4 + x4/64 + x6/512

+ ...),
which agrees even in the third-order term!

However, in the same paper [Ramanujan, S., "Modular Equations and Approximations to
," Quart. J. Pure. Appl. Math., vol. 45 (1913-1914), pp. 350-372], he gives another, even
better approximation:

C ~~ (a+b)(1+3x2/[10+sqrt(4-3x2)])
which has a relative error of about (3/217)x10 for small values of x, since this function has
series expansion
(a+b)(1 + x2/4
+ x4/64
+ x6/256
+ 25x8/16384
+ 95x10/131072 + ...),
agreeing with the actual series for C through terms of the fifth order, and even having
sixth order term close to right!
For a relatively compact formula, this is clearly the winner, although it's rarely clear how
Ramanujan derived his formulas. Anyone interested enough to read this far would
probably greatly enjoy taking a detour to read about his fascinating life and contributions
to mathematics in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive.

Contributed by "Dr. Rob," Robert L. Ward