0

Crackers, Water Bottles, and Chocolate: Finding the Optimal Packaging Shape
to Minimize Waste

8 April 2024
Candidate Code: klb769
Word Count: 2,392
Page Count: 13
 1

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE

Living in a country where trash accumulates relatively quickly across individual households and
being faced with the climate change crisis I have been noticing inefficiencies in packaging. For
instance, I have had many deliveries arrive in boxes with extra space or are unnecessarily placed in
separate boxes as if the surface area of the products has been miscalculated. As someone who deeply
cares about the environment, I have found ways to repurpose packaging waste but I am also
concerned about the negative effects it has on the environment as the packaging is truly in excess
and usually gets thrown away by other people, ending up in landfills.

Even though math was never my strong suite, I like seeing how the formulas and methods I learned
in class are applied to real world scenarios and ultimately, my interests in sustainability and
eco-friendly systems coupled with knowledge of geometry as well as derivatives, inspired me to use
mathematical means in order to figure out an optimal package shape that would minimize the
amount of unnecessary packaging for goods.

For this investigation, I have decided to narrow my research to food related products as they are
sought after by all consumers, thus minimizing their packaging waste would be the best place to start
the journey to a zero-carbon future.

AIM AND APPROACH

As mentioned, the aim of this investigation is to find the best package shape for food related goods
that would minimize the need for excess packaging.

I have decided to evaluate the best packaging shape for liquids specifically for a volume of 2 liters.
This is because 2 liters is the most commonly suggested amount of water an adult should consume
each day and given that water is needed by all human beings I have decided to start my investigation
there. First I will use geometry to calculate the surface area of three forms including a rectangular
prism, a cylinder, and a triangular prism. Since finding the optimal shape requires minimizing the
surface area for a maximum volume I will also rely on my knowledge of calculus (specifically
derivatives). Based on these results I will evaluate the prospect of each shape being the most
sustainable for reproduction by comparing their ratios of area to volume to determine the most
sustainable packaging shape for 2 liters of water.

The reason I settled on the three shapes mentioned above (rectangular prism, cylinder, and
triangular prism) is because they have different bases. I wanted to investigate the practicalities of
these distinct shapes, whether some generate more packaging waste than others, and why.
 2

As an extension to my investigation I will also evaluate the economic favorability of using a cube
versus a spherical shape by calculating the amount of storage space each of them saves and
discussing the benefits of a smaller surface area versus a larger volume.

DATA AND MEASUREMENTS:

All of the formulas for volume and area were adapted from Topic 3: Geometry and trigonometry
section of the IB “Mathematics: analysis and approaches formula booklet”.

My knowledge of derivatives came from class and through the Mathematics : Analysis and Approaches
SL. 2 : For Use with IB Diploma Programme. textbook by Haese Mathematics. I specifically referenced
Chapter 12 A: Simple Rules of Differentiation to perform the calculations below.

Rectangular Prism
I started with a rectangular prism because of how frequently it is used in packaging. Given that it
also commonly appears in optimization problems I thought it was a good starting point for my
investigation.

The first step was to identify the formula for volume and plug it into the formula for surface area.
As 𝑉 = 𝑙 • 𝑤 • ℎ for a rectangular prism, I rewrote the equation for a rectangular prism with a
2
square base as 𝑉 = 𝑥 • 𝑦 .

Fig. 1

The second part of the first step is to determine the total surface area of a closed rectangular prism.
The formula for the total surface area is 𝐴 = 2 • 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 4 (𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒) so I
2
rewrote the equation as 𝐴 = 2𝑥 + 4 𝑥𝑦
 3

The second step was. By using a definite value of 2 liters for volume (V) I was able to turn the
equation into a one variable problem. Knowing that the volume had to be 2 liters and that 1 liter =
3 3
1000𝑐𝑚 , I converted the value to 𝑐𝑚 by multiplying by 1000 so my equation for volume ended up
looking like this:

2
2000 = 𝑥 𝑦

To determine the y variable, I rearranged this formula:

𝑣 2000
𝑦 = 2 = 2
𝑥 𝑥

Then I simplified to get an equation I could differentiate:

2
𝐴 = 2𝑥 + 4 𝑥𝑦

2 2000
= 2𝑥 + 4 𝑥( 2 )
𝑥

2 −1
∴ 𝐴 (𝑥) = 2𝑥 + 8000𝑥

−2
∴ '(𝑥) = 4𝑥 − 8000𝑥

The third step was to set the first derivative to be equal to 0, solving the equation for x in order to
find extrema(s). Finally, I will use the second derivative to determine the type of local extrema
(minimum or maximum) presenting itself.

' −2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 4𝑥 − 8000𝑥 =0
8000
4𝑥 = 2
𝑥
3
𝑥 = 2000
∴ 𝑥 = 12. 6

' −2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 4𝑥 − 8000𝑥
'' −3
∴ 𝐴 (𝑥) = 4 + 16000𝑥
'' 16000
∴ 𝐴 (12. 6) = 4 + 3 = 12
12.6

''
𝐴 (12. 6) > 0 ∴ 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑥 = 12. 6 cm
 4

3
Using my knowledge of the local minimum (x = 12.6 cm) and volume (2000𝑐𝑚 ) I was able to
calculate the y value.
𝑉
𝑦 = 2
𝑥
2000
𝑦 = 2
12.6
= 12.5976 ≈ 12.6 cm

Thus the minimum material is used when x = 12.6 cm and y = 12.6 cm. This means that the length
(l), width (w), and height (h) of a rectangular prism manufactured to hold 2 liters of liquid should all
be equal to 12.6 cm. From these results I concluded that the most sustainable rectangular prism
would be a cube.

Cylinder
I used the same process for a cylinder as for the rectangular prism.

Step #1: Volume and surface area

2
Identifying the formula for the volume of a cylinder which is 𝑉 = π𝑟 ℎ , I rewrote the equation as
2
𝑉 = π𝑥 𝑦 in order to keep the unknown variables the same as for the rectangular prism.

2
As the equation for surface area is 𝐴 = 2π𝑟 + 2 π𝑟ℎ , I also rewrote r and h in terms of x and
y respectively, to minimize confusion of unknown variables.
2
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + 2 π𝑥𝑦

Step #2: Expressing the x-variable through the y-variable and the full
equation

3 2
As V = 2000𝑐𝑚 , meaning that 2000 = π𝑥 𝑦 , I rearranged the equation to:
2000
𝑦 = 2 .
π𝑥

Then I substituted the equation into the formula for surface area ending up
with:
2 2000
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + 2𝑥 ( 2 )
π𝑥
Fig. 2.

which I could simplify into:

2 2000
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + 2𝑥 ( 2 )
𝑥
 5

and then even further into:

2 4000
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + ( 𝑥
).

Step #3: Find the derivative and solve for zero

By simplifying the full equation for surface area I was able to differentiate, finding the first
derivative.
2 4000
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + ( 𝑥
)
2 −1
= 2π𝑥 + 4000𝑥

−2
∴ A’(x) = 4π𝑥 + 4000𝑥

Next I set the first derivative to 0.

𝐼 −2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 4π𝑥 + 4000𝑥 =0
4000
4π𝑥 = 2
𝑥
4000
4π𝑥 = 2
𝑥
3
4π𝑥 = 4000
3 1000
𝑥 = π
3
1000
∴𝑥 = π
= 6.83 cm

Then, taking the second derivative I found the local minimum.

𝐼𝐼 −3
𝐴 (𝑥) = 4π + 8000 𝑥
𝐼𝐼 8000
∴ 𝐴 (6. 83) = 4π + 3 = 37.675 ≈ 37.7
6.83

𝐼𝐼
𝐴 (6. 83) > 0 ∴ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑥 = 6. 83 𝑐𝑚
 6

Step #4: Solve for the minimum y-value

3
Using the local minimum (6.83) and volume (2000𝑐𝑚 ) I calculated the y value.

𝑉
𝑦 = 2
π𝑥
2000
𝑦 = 2
π6.83
= 13.65 cm

Given my calculations, I was able to conclude that the optimal size for a cylindrical package meant to
contain 2 liters would be when x = 6.83 and y = 13.65 cm. In other words the radius (r) should be
6.83 cm while the height (h) should be 13.65 cm .

Triangular Prism
I used the same process once more to calculate the minimum amount of material needed to fit 2
3
liters (2000𝑐𝑚 ) in a triangular prism.

Step #1: Volume and surface area:

2
3
The equation for the volume of a triangular prism is 𝑉 = 4
𝑥 𝑦 in terms of the variables x and
y for base side length and prism height respectively.

Fig. 3

2
3
The surface area is 𝐴 = 2
𝑥 + 3𝑥𝑦
 7

Step #2: Expressing the x-variable through the y-variable and the full equation

3
Because V = 2000𝑐𝑚 , I rearrange the equation for the volume of a triangular prism into
2
8000 3
𝑦 = 2 . Then, substituting this equation into the surface area 𝐴 = 4
𝑥 𝑦 + 3𝑥𝑦, I came
3𝑥
2
3 8000
up with 𝐴(𝑥) = 2 4
𝑥 + 3𝑥 2
3𝑥

Step #3: Find the derivative and solve for zero

2
3 8000
To find the first derivative I simplified the equation 𝐴(𝑥) = 2 4
𝑥 + 3𝑥 2 to:
3𝑥

2
3 −1
𝐴(𝑥) = 2
𝑥 + 3 • 8000𝑥 . From which I calculated that
𝐼 −2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 3𝑥 − 3 • 8000𝑥

Then I set the first derivative to 0.

𝐼 −2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 3𝑥 − 3 • 8000𝑥 =0
3
𝑥 = 8000
3
∴𝑥 = 8000 = 20

Next I differentiated for the second derivative to find the local minimum.

𝐼𝐼 −3
𝐴 (𝑥) = 3 + 2 3 • 8000𝑥
𝐼𝐼 8000
∴ 𝐴 (20) = 3 + 2 3• 3 = 3 3 = ≈ 5.19
20

𝐼𝐼
𝐴 (20) > 0 ∴ 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑥 = 20
 8

Step #4: Solve for the minimum y-value

2
3 𝑉
Rearranging the formula for volume (𝑉 = 4
𝑥 𝑦 ) from step #2, I got 𝑦 = 2 . Since the
3𝑥
2
3
volume equation is 2000 = 4
(20) 𝑦 when I plug in known values (volume and local
8000
minimum), I simplified it into 𝑦 = 2 in order to solve for y.
3 •20

8000
𝑦 = 2
3 •20
= 11.547 ≈ 11.6

My calculations suggest that the minimum material required to fit 2 liters of liquid into a triangular
prism is when the base has a side length of 20 cm and a prism height of 11.6 cm..

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Because my investigation did not stop at simply finding the minimum amount material needed to
create sustainable packaging sizes for three different shapes (a rectangular prism, a cylinder, and a
triangular prism), I decided to find the ratios between each surface areas and the volume of 2 liters
3
(2000𝑐𝑚 ) which I could use as comparison points to calculate which of the shapes would be the
most ecologically favorable for mass manufacturing.

In order to calculate the surface area, I retrieved the formulas of each shape and substituted my x
and y values. (All of this information is presented in Table #1)

Table #1: Data and Surface Area Formulas

Shape Name x and y values (V = 2L) Surface Area Formula

Rectangular Prism x = 12.6 𝑐𝑚 −1

2
𝐴 (𝑥) = 2𝑥 + 8000𝑥
y = 12. 6 𝑐𝑚

Cylinder x = 6.83 𝑐𝑚 2
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + 4000𝑥
−1

y = 42.9 𝑐𝑚

Triangular Prism x = 20 𝑐𝑚 2
3 −1
3 𝐴(𝑥) = 2
𝑥 + 3 • 8000𝑥
y =11.6 𝑐𝑚 .
 9

Ratio for the Rectangular Prism (Cube)

2 −1
𝐴 (𝑥) = 2𝑥 + 8000𝑥

2 −1
𝐴 (𝑥) = 2(12. 6) + 8000(12. 6)
2
= 952.44 ≈ 952 𝑐𝑚

Then I took the ratio (R) of surface area to volume

𝐴
𝑅 = 𝑉
952
𝑅 = 2000
= 0.4762 ≈ 0.476

Ratio for the Cylinder

2 −1
𝐴 = 2π𝑥 + 4000𝑥
2 −1
𝐴 = 2π(6. 83) + 4000(6. 83)
2
= 878.76 ≈ 879 𝑐𝑚

𝐴
𝑅 = 𝑉
879
𝑅 = 2000
= 0.439

Ratio for the Triangular Prism

2
3 −1
𝐴(𝑥) = 4
𝑥 + 3 • 8000𝑥
2
3 −1
𝐴(𝑥) = 2
(20) + 3 • 8000(20)
= 1039.23 ≈ 1039

𝐴
𝑅 = 𝑉
1039
𝑅 = 2000
= 0.5196 ≈ 0.520
 10

After calculating the ratios I compiled data including the shape name, its dimensions, and the ratio
between surface area and volume in Table #2.

Table #2: Ratios

Shape Name Dimensions Ratio (𝑅 =
𝐴
)
𝑉

Rectangular Prism Length = 12.6 𝑐𝑚 0.476

Width = 12. 6 𝑐𝑚

Cylinder Radius = 6.83 𝑐𝑚 0.439

Height = 13.65 𝑐𝑚

Triangular Prism Base side length = 20 𝑐𝑚 0.520

Prism height =11.6 𝑐𝑚 .

EVALUATION AND EXTENSIONS

Without any further calculations, the information in Table #2 indicates that a cylinder with a radius
3
of 6.83 cm and height of 13.65 cm 𝑐𝑚 would require the least amount of packaging material to be
manufactured, thus would be the most sustainable packaging shape for 2 liters of a liquid. Having
the smallest ratio between the surface area and volume indicates that it takes less packaging material
to create a cylinder that fits 2 liters of a liquid than a rectangular or triangular prism of the same
volume.

Nevertheless, since a cylinder is already the most sustainable of the three, I chose to further
investigate the sphere. Because a cylinder has a “curve” in its base I wondered if a sphere would be
an even better option. Moreover, a sphere is the only geometrical shape in which all points on the
surface are equally distanced from the center of the mass of the shape so I wanted to find out if this
made it a more sustainable shape than a cube.
 11

Cube
Using the same method as for the shapes in Table #2, I rewrote the formula for volume
3
(𝑉 = 𝑙 • 𝑤 • ℎ) in terms of x (𝑉 = 𝑥 ) and solved for x

3
𝑉 = 𝑥
3 1/3
𝑥 = 𝑉 =𝑉

3
Because I have a known volume of 2 liters (2000 𝑐𝑚 ), I could also find the x value.

3
2000 = 𝑥
3
𝑥 = 2000 = 12.559
3
≈ 12.6 𝑐𝑚

2 2
Then I took the formula for surface area (𝐴 = 6𝑠 ) and rewrote it in terms of x (𝐴 = 6𝑥 ) and
solved for A using the volume.
2
𝐴 = 6𝑥
2/3
= 6𝑉

2/3
A = 6(2000)
3
= 952.44 ≈ 952 𝑐𝑚

Sphere
4 3 4 3
For the sphere I also I rewrote the formula for volume (𝑉 = 3
π𝑟 ) in terms of x (𝑉 = 3
π𝑥 )
and solved for x.
4 3
𝑉 = 3
π𝑥
3 3𝑉
𝑥 = 4π
3 3𝑉
𝑥 = 4π

3
Because I already had a volume of 2 liters (2000 𝑐𝑚 ) I could solve for the x value.

4 3
2000 = 3
π𝑥
2000 3
4 = 𝑥
3
π
 12

x = 7.816 ≈ 7.82

2
Once again I took the formula for surface area (𝐴 = 4π𝑥 ) and plugged in the value of x found
above:
2
𝐴 = 4π𝑥
3𝑉 2/3
= 4π ( 4π )
2/3 2/3
3 •𝑉 2/3
= 4π • 2/3 = 1. 36 • 𝑉
4π

2/3
𝐴 = 1. 36 • 𝑉
2/3 2
= 1. 36 • (2000) = 215.89 ≈ 216 𝑐𝑚

Ratios and Comparison of Calculations

Table #3: Cube and Sphere Data

Shape Surface Area Equation x value (V = 2L) Surface Area (A)

Cube 𝐴 = 6𝑉
2/3
Base side length = 12.6 𝑐𝑚 952 𝑐𝑚
2
𝑐

Sphere 𝐴 = 1. 36 • 𝑉
2/3
Radius = 7.82 𝑐𝑚 216 𝑐𝑚
2
𝑠
Diameter (d = 2x) = 15.7 cm

Given the information in Table #3 I concluded that my hypothesis about the sphere being more
efficient in terms of “surface to volume” was correct. This is because a ratio between the surface
area of a cube and sphere indicates that a sphere would be 4.4 times more efficient in terms of
material used

𝐴 𝑐 6
𝐴
= 1.36
= 4.4
𝑠

(I also realized that similar logic could be used to explain why cylindrical packaging is more
sustainable than rectangular or triangular).

Even though I managed to prove my hypothesis, I reflected upon the fact that there are not many
spherical packages in my local grocery stores. Most of the food is packaged in rectangular prisms or
cylinders and even the drink section seems strictly confined to the use of these shapes specifically for
milk cartons, juice boxes, and yogurt. This realization led me to believe that spheres may be less
economically favorable than other packaging shapes. For instance, the comparison between the
 13

diameter of the sphere and the base side length of the cube in my investigation suggests that the
sphere requires more storage space as x = 7.83 cm meaning that the diameter is twice that value
15.66 cm while the cube would require less than that: 12.6 cm in all 3 dimensions. Mathematician
Antonella Cupillari herself suggests that “[a sphere] is hard to pack in boxes, even harder to keep on
shelves, and hard to open without spills” whereas a “cube would be the easiest to pack and stack on
shelves” (2). Therefore even though a sphere is the best option for minimizing surface area, it has
several limitations which a cube does not.

Other Extensions
❖ The optimal packaging shape varies for different materials and volumes therefore, a
limitation to my investigation is that I only considered a volume of 2 liters and geometric
shapes disregarding unusual or inorganically shaped products.
❖ Another extension could consider the economic favorability of producing each shape by
investigating the stacking properties of different shapes. Even though I made calculations for
a triangular prism I did not address whether its stacking properties were more effective than
that of a rectangular prism or cylinder.
❖ While I briefly addressed the issue of stacking cubes versus spheres, I did not consider
different storage spaces which may require different types of shapes to stack packages
effectively.
 14

References

Antonella Cupillari. “Math in a Can.” The Mathematics Teacher, vol. 108, no. 6, 2015, pp. 434–39.
JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.108.6.0434. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.

Hease, Michael, et al. Mathematics : Analysis and Approaches SL. 2 : For Use with IB Diploma Programme.

First edition, Hease Mathematics, 2019, p. 612.

International Baccalaureate Organization. “Mathematics: analysis and approaches formula booklet”.

Version 1.3, International Baccalaureate Organization, 2019, Topic 3: Geometry and
Trigonometry p. 6-7.

Fig. 1: My own image. Digital image taken from a Samsung S10e. 30 December 2023.

Fig. 2: My own image. Digital image taken from a Samsung S10e. 30 December 2023.

Fig. 3: My own image. Digital image taken from a Samsung S10e. 31 December 2023.