Standard algebraic integrals
Some integrals show up so often, in so many disguises, that memorising them outright is faster than re-deriving them every time — the way you memorise rather than re-running first principles each time. This is exactly that situation for a family of integrands built from and . This section belongs to the Integrals (Indefinite) section of the ISC Class 12 Calculus unit. Beyond ordinary power-rule and substitution integrals, the syllabus explicitly lists a short table of standard algebraic forms — and, crucially, the skill of recognising when a given integral is secretly one of these forms in disguise, usually after completing the square or splitting a linear numerator. That recognition step, more than the memorised formulae themselves, is what exam questions actually test.
A handful of memorised standard forms for , , and their square-root counterparts solve most quadratic-under-a-root integrals once a general quadratic is reshaped into by completing the square, or a linear numerator is split into a derivative-matching piece plus a constant.
The core idea
The six standard results. Each is provable by a trigonometric or hyperbolic substitution, but in practice they are used as ready-made formulae, looked up the way you would look up a derivative:
where: is a fixed positive constant and the variable of integration; the sign in the denominator (plus or minus ) decides which of the two formulae applies.
Two recognition moves make the table usable on a general quadratic. First, for that is not already a perfect shape, complete the square: , and match the bracket against the table. Second, for a linear-over-quadratic integrand , split the numerator against the denominator's own derivative,
where: and are constants chosen so the equation holds identically in . This turns one integral into two: an piece that integrates to a logarithm, and a -weighted standard form from the table above.
The same split extends to square roots. For , the identical split separates the integral into — solved by the substitution , collapsing to the power rule — plus , solved by completing the square and matching one of the forms. This "one derivative-matching piece, one standard-form piece" pattern is the single most reusable idea in this entire topic, and it resurfaces later in trigonometric-rational integrals with a linear numerator, so it is worth internalising here rather than treating it as a one-off trick.
Why memorise instead of re-derive every time. Each of the six results can, in principle, be obtained fresh with a trigonometric substitution (, , or ) or, for the log forms, by partial fractions. But under exam time pressure, re-deriving a result from scratch for every single integral is slow and error-prone. The efficient exam strategy is therefore two-layered: know the table cold as a fast lookup, but also keep one derivation (shown below) fresh enough in memory to reconstruct any forgotten entry, and to justify a result if a question explicitly asks you to derive rather than merely evaluate.
Building the log-form result
The goal is to derive the logarithmic standard result from scratch using partial fractions rather than quoting it, so that the formula's origin — and the reason the factor sits exactly where it does — is understood well enough to reconstruct under exam pressure even if the memorised table is forgotten.
Step 1. Factor the denominator as a difference of squares: . This is the algebraic fact that unlocks the whole derivation — a fraction with this denominator can be split into two simpler fractions, one for each factor.
Step 2. Set up the partial-fraction decomposition and clear denominators: . Substituting gives , so ; substituting gives , so .
Step 3. Integrate the two simple fractions separately: .
Step 4. Combine the two logarithms using to reach the standard form: . This matches the memorised table exactly, and the same steps, run in reverse, are how you would verify the result by differentiating back.
Worked example
Evaluate .
Step 1. Compute the denominator's derivative: . Compare it with the numerator to find and such that . Matching the -coefficient gives , and matching constants gives , so : .
Step 2. Split the integral using that identity:
Step 3. The first piece is exactly the form, which integrates directly to a logarithm: .
Step 4. For the second piece, complete the square: , matching the standard form with , : .
Step 5. Combine both pieces into the final answer: .
Competitive stretch
A quick square-root check on the same table entry, with no splitting needed: matches directly with (since is already a perfect shape), giving — no completing the square or splitting is needed once the integrand is already in the exact table shape.
Common traps
- Mixing up the and log forms — the sign inside the denominator ( versus ) decides which formula applies; check it before reaching for either.
- Forgetting to complete the square on a general quadratic like before applying a table formula — the formulae apply only to the exact shape .
- Splitting incorrectly — the coefficient must exactly reproduce the -term via ; get wrong and the leftover constant is wrong too.
- Dropping the or scaling factor in front of or — these come from the chain rule and are easy to omit under time pressure.
- Choosing the wrong square-root formula among the three variants — gives a term, while give logarithmic terms; match the exact sign pattern under the root before substituting values of .
Ask the tutor: Want a step-by-step walkthrough of splitting a trickier linear-over-quadratic integral into its log and standard-form pieces? Ask the AI tutor for a guided example.
How do I know whether to complete the square or split the numerator first
Look at the numerator. If it is just a constant (or the integral is purely or with no multiplying anything on top), go straight to completing the square. If the numerator has an term, like , split it first into the piece plus a constant piece — the constant piece is then the one you complete the square on.
Why does completing the square work here but not for a cubic denominator
Completing the square converts any quadratic exactly into , because a quadratic has only one turning point and its graph is always a shifted, scaled parabola — the substitution removes the linear term completely. A cubic has no such universal shifted-square form, so this trick is specific to quadratics; cubic and higher denominators generally need full partial fractions with more terms instead.
Do I need to memorise all six standard forms, or can I derive them in the exam
Memorising them is faster and safer under time pressure, but knowing the derivations protects you if you misremember one. The and forms come from the substitutions and respectively; the log forms for come from partial fractions, as shown above. If you blank on a formula, five minutes rebuilding it from these substitutions is safer than guessing.