Determining the

optimum shape for a

plastic bottle
SL Mathematics: Internal Assessment

Candidate Code: hcb340

Introduction
The environment is something I’m becoming increasingly concerned about, it seems every
day there is a new article in the news about plastics killing marine-life and accumulating in
species higher up the food chain due to bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation is when something
that begins in a small concentration, gradually gets more concentrated up the food pyramid,
this happens for example, when a small fish
eats a small piece of plastic and then a sea
bird for example may eat many, many fish
which have all eaten pieces of plastic. That
sea bird will now have significant amounts of
plastic in its digestive system, purely from
eating smaller fish. This constant onslaught
of upsetting news prompted me to think
about how we could take a first step towards
reducing our plastic use. Figure 1 A Plastic Ocean

I am not naïve enough to believe that the production and use of single use plastic is just going
to stop overnight, especially considering how lucrative the production of plastics can be and
taking into account that we as a planet tend to value short-term monetary gain over our
environment. Bearing that in mind, my idea for this investigation was derived from the
thought process of reducing plastic use in such a way that general industry might be agreeable.
I decided to try and determine the optimum shape of a plastic bottle that minimizes the
amount of plastic used for a 500cm3 bottle and in doing so, hopefully find a compromise to
take a small (reasonable) step towards reducing plastic use. I decided on 500cm3 as the
volume, as the majority of drinks bottles are 500cm3 (cm3 is equivalent to ml).
To do this I had to create a certain set of parameters, so I fixed the volume of the bottles at
500cm3 so that I could compare the surface areas. I also had to accept that there would be
certain unrealistic assumptions that I would have to make for this to be possible. Firstly, I
don’t take into account the fact that a 500cm3 bottle will in reality be larger than 500cm3 to
account for the fact a bottle will not be filled to the absolute maximum point. Additionally, I
am not taking into account the thickness of the plastic, the surface areas calculated assume
that the plastic itself has no volume. However, for the purpose of comparison, as long as I
remain consistent with this process, the comparison should be fair. In reality, the bottles
would also need a lid, however, if I make the assumption that the bottle lids would all add the
same amount of volume and surface area on each bottle, then again, as before, it remains a
systematic error which should not affect comparability.

1
Cylinder:
As the majority of plastic bottles are in a majorly cylindrical shape, I decided it would be best
to primarily investigate the optimal dimensions and surface area of a cylinder. In order to do
this, I used optimisation. I began by finding one value in terms
of another and as I am keeping the volume at a constant
500cm3, I used the volume equation to do this.
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ℎ
500
500𝑐𝑚3 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ℎ ∴ ℎ =
𝜋𝑟 2
I then used this value for ℎ in terms of 𝑟 and substituted it
into the equation for surface area.
500
𝑆. 𝐴. = 2𝜋𝑟ℎ + 2𝜋𝑟 2 ∴ 𝑆. 𝐴. = 2𝜋𝑟 𝜋𝑟 2 + 2𝜋𝑟 2

Figure 2 Cylinder Diagram Then, to find the minimal surface area of a 500cm3 cylinder I
differentiated the equation for surface area.
500 1000
𝑓(𝑟) = 2𝜋𝑟 2
+ 2𝜋𝑟 2 ∴ 𝑓(𝑟) = + 2𝜋𝑟 2
𝜋𝑟 𝑟
𝑑𝑢 𝑑𝑣
𝑢 𝑣 −𝑢
𝑸𝒖𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒖𝒍𝒆: 𝑓(𝑟)1 = → 𝑓 ′ (𝑟)1 = 𝑑𝑟 𝑑𝑟
𝑣 𝑣 2
𝑑𝑢
𝑢 = 1000 → =0
𝑑𝑟
𝑑𝑣 𝑟 × 0 − 1000 × 1 −1000
𝑣=𝑟 → = 1 𝑓 ′ (𝑟)1 = =
𝑑𝑟 𝑟2 𝑟2
′ (𝑟) 2−1
𝑓 2 = 2 × 2𝜋𝑟 = 4𝜋𝑟
−𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝒇′ (𝒓) = + 𝟒𝝅𝒓
𝒓𝟐
Having differentiated the equation for surface area, I then set the equation to zero in order
to find any stationary points (in this case I was specifically looking for the minimum point).
−1000 1000 𝟑 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎
0= + 4𝜋𝑟 → = 4𝜋𝑟 → 4𝜋𝑟 3 = 1000 → 𝒓 = √ ≈ 𝟒. 𝟑𝟎
𝑟2 𝑟2 𝟒𝝅

To verify that this was in fact a minimum point, I took the second derivative and substituted
in my value for 𝑟 (equivalent to 𝑥):

𝑓′(𝑟) = −1000𝑟 −2 + 4𝜋𝑟 → 𝑓"(𝑟) = −1000(−2𝑟 −3) + 4𝜋

−3
1000
3 1000 3
𝑓" ( √ ) = −1000 (−2 ( √ ) ) + 4𝜋 = 37.699 …
4𝜋 4𝜋

The value of 37.699…. achieved here is positive, which shows that this is indeed a minimum
point, as the curvature of the function at this coordinate is positive indicating the function is
concave upwards. Following that, I substituted the value for 𝑟 back into the original surface
area equation to find the minimum surface area of a 500cm3 cylinder.

2
 𝟐
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟐 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟑 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎
𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 = + 𝟐𝝅𝒓 = + 𝟐𝝅 ( √ ) = 𝟑𝟒𝟖. 𝟕𝟑𝟒 … ≈ 𝟑𝟒𝟗𝒄𝒎𝟐
𝒓 𝟑 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝟒𝝅
√
𝟒𝝅

The dimensions of the cylinder are:

3 1000
𝑟= √ = 4.30127 … ≈ 4.30𝑐𝑚
4𝜋
500 500
ℎ= 2= 2 = 8.60254 … ≈ 8.60𝑐𝑚
𝜋𝑟 3 1000
𝜋 ( √ 4𝜋 )

What I discovered was that the radius for an

optimized cylinder is always half that of its height and
therefore equal to the diameter. As can be seen in the
3D graph to the right (y represents diameter, x
represents height), this cylinder is much shorter and
fatter than the average plastic water bottle, which
may for example have dimensions 𝐵𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 ≈
3.25, ℎ ≈ 20

Cone:
Having worked out the optimum shape for a cylinder,
which as previously mentioned is usually the basis for
most plastic water bottles, I decided it would be
interesting to try a variety of other more abstract shapes
to see if they could be more plastic efficient than a
cylinder, starting with a cone. Again, to begin, I set the
volume equal to 500cm3.
1 2 1 1500
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝜋𝑟 ℎ → 500 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ℎ → ℎ =
3 3 𝜋𝑟 2
Figure 3 Cone Diagram
Then in order to find 𝑠 which makes up a part of the
surface area formula in terms of 𝑟 I used Pythagoras
theorem substituting my previously found value for ℎ in terms of 𝑟.

1500 2
𝑠 = 𝑟 + ℎ → 𝑠 = √(
2 2 2
) + 𝑟2
𝜋𝑟 2
This value found for 𝑠 in terms of 𝑟 can then be substituted into the equation for surface area:
1500 2
𝑆. 𝐴. = 𝜋𝑟𝑠 + 𝜋𝑟 2 → 𝑆. 𝐴. = 𝜋𝑟√( 𝜋𝑟 2 ) + 𝑟 2 + 𝜋𝑟 2
Having solved the minimum surface area for the cylinder graphically, I decided to alternatively
solve this graphically using a GDC to find the minimum point on the graph.

3
 As can be seen above, the optimal value for 𝑟 (= 𝑥) is ≈ 5.53 and the minimum surface area
is ≈ 384𝑐𝑚2 . We can work out the approximate other dimensions of the cone by substituting
the value for r back into the equations derived at the beginning.
1500 1500
ℎ= 2
= ≈ 15.6𝑐𝑚
𝜋𝑟 𝜋5.532

1500 2
𝑠 = √( ) + 5.532 ≈ 16.6𝑐𝑚
𝜋5.532

s However, the cone is less efficient in terms of surface

area as 𝑆. 𝐴. (𝑦) ≈ 384𝑐𝑚2 which is greater than the
value found for a Cylinder (≈ 260𝑐𝑚2 ) therefore it is
not the optimum shape for a plastic bottle.

r Cube:
Prior to beginning the calculations for a cube, it was
fairly obvious to me that a cube would not be the
most surface area efficient shape, as corners tend to
add significant amounts of extra surface area in
comparison to rounded edges. However, I still
thought it was important to determine the exact
surface area value to allow for comparison between
other shapes.
3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝑎3 → 500 = 𝑎3 → 𝑎 = √500
3
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 6𝑎2 → 𝑆. 𝐴. = 6( √500)2
Figure 4 Cube Diagram ≈ 378𝑐𝑚2

4

Figure 5 Sphere Diagram
Sphere:
With the idea in mind that corners created unnecessary surface
area, I considered that perhaps a sphere would be the most
plastic efficient shape for a bottle. Bearing in mind that a sphere
has the issue of not being able to balance, however for the
purpose of this investigation we are discounting the fact that it
wouldn’t make sense to have a bottle with a rounded bottom.
Again, as all the other processes started, I began by substituting
500cm3 into the volume equation. As a sphere, similar to the
cube, has only one variable, there’s no need to differentiate as
there’s only one possibility for a 500cm3 sphere.

4 3 4 3 1500
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝜋𝑟 → 500 = 𝜋𝑟 3 → 𝑟 = √
3 3 4𝜋
2
31500
𝑆. 𝐴. = 4𝜋𝑟 2 → 4𝜋 ( √ ) = 304.647 … ≈ 305𝑐𝑚2
4𝜋

My hypothesis that having fewer corners was correct, as in comparison to the cube, the
sphere has a much lower surface area and the sphere also beats the cylinder for surface area
to volume ratio.

Semi-Sphere:
As logistically, the sphere wouldn’t work, I decided to
calculate the surface area of a Semi-Sphere as it would have
the benefit of being able to stand. I took the equation for a
sphere and halved the volume.

2 2 3 1500
𝑉 = 𝜋𝑟 3 → 500 = 𝜋𝑟 3 → 𝑟 = √
Figure 6 Semi-Sphere Diagram 3 3 2𝜋

Then for surface area I used half the surface area of a sphere, plus the surface area of a circle.
2
1500
3
𝑆. 𝐴. = 2𝜋𝑟 2 + 𝜋𝑟 2 = 3𝜋𝑟 2 → 𝑆. 𝐴. = 3𝜋 ( √ ) = 362.698 … ≈ 363𝑐𝑚2
2𝜋

Unfortunately, the added surface area from the sphere being halved means that the total
surface area is significantly larger than that of a sphere. Perhaps if the very bottom of a sphere
were cut off, just low enough for it to balance that would be a possibility for a lower surface
area and standing shape.

5
Extension:
Having investigated all these options, I decided that in order to evaluate the best possible
shape to minimize plastic use, I ought to find the surface area of some more realistic bottle
shapes to allow for comparison. How would the average plastic bottle surface area, compare
to the optimized shapes that I have found? Is it possible to combine my knowledge of the
optimal cylinder dimensions to create a bottle with similar dimensions, that could be more
realistic for commercial use?

A Typical Plastic Bottle:

To begin this extension, I thought it would be best to investigate the average shape of a plastic
bottle and to determine an approximate surface area for the sort of PET bottles one may find
in a vending machine. To find the approximate dimensions, I measured a plastic bottle and
found that it was approximately 21cm tall and 5cm wide, I then took these values, and tried
to fit an image of a 500cm3 plastic bottle, to similar dimensions to those on autograph. As can
be seen below, I modelled the shape of the water bottle and then found a line of best fit (4th
order), that approximately fit the bottle shape, following that I moved the points around to
adjust the curve.

What became complicated, was it became quickly apparent that I could not set the volume
to 500cm3 unlike with optimisation and therefore I had to use trial and error to determine the
exact parameters that would create a 500cm3 bottle. I did this by inputting the equation found,
into a 3D graph, found the area under the graph using the trapezium rule and then rotated
that around the x-axis to find the volume. Autograph would then give me a value for the
volume and based on whether the volume was too large or too small, I fiddled with the
parameters, making the radius larger/smaller, the bottle taller/shorter etc… until I reached a
point that was almost exactly 500cm3 (In reality a bottle would be larger than this, as it’s not
filled to the absolute maximum, however I wanted to be able to compare the bottle, to the
other shapes).
The equation I found mapping the bottle is:
𝑓(𝑥) = −1.8 × 10−4 𝑥 4 + 6.521 × 10−3 𝑥 3 − 7.288 × 10−2 𝑥 2 + 2.53 × 10−1 𝑥 + 2.775

6
From this I can integrate the equation between the
previously determined points on the x-axis (determined
through trial and error) to verify that the volume of
revolution is in fact approximately 500cm3.
𝑏
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝜋 ∫ 𝑓(𝑥)2 𝑑𝑥
𝑎
21
𝑉 = 𝜋 ∫ {−1.8 × 10−4 𝑥 4 + 6.521 × 10−3 𝑥 3
1.1
− 7.288 × 10−2 𝑥 2 + 2.53 × 10−1 𝑥
+ 2.775}2 𝑑𝑥 = 499.827 … ≈ 500𝑐𝑚3
Having verified that the function and parameters I found for
this bottle lead to a volume of 500cm3 when the function is
rotated around the x-axis, I can then move forward to
calculate the surface area of this bottle.
𝑏
𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎1 = 2𝜋 ∫ 𝑓(𝑥)√1 + {𝑓 ′ (𝑥)}2 𝑑𝑥
𝑎

𝑓 ′ (𝑥) = −7.2 × 10−4 𝑥 3 + 19.563 × 10−3 𝑥 2 − 14.576 × 10−2 𝑥 + 2.53 × 10−1

𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎:
21
= 2𝜋 ∫ {−1.8 × 10−4 𝑥 4 + 6.521 × 10−3 𝑥 3 − 7.288 × 10−2 𝑥 2 + 2.53 × 10−1 𝑥 + 2.775}
1.1
× √1 + {−7.2 × 10−4 𝑥 3 + 19.563 × 10−3 𝑥 2 − 14.576 × 10−2 𝑥 + 2.53 × 10−1 }2 𝑑𝑥
= 357.0799 𝑐𝑚2
𝐵𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋2.9735311132 = 27.7776 … 𝑐𝑚2
𝑇𝑜𝑝 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋1.3323212 = 5.57657 … 𝑐𝑚2
In order to calculate the bottom and top surface area, I substituted the minimum and
maximum x – values into the original equation to find the y – coordinate which is also equal
to radius. From that y – coordinate (radius) I calculated the area of the circles.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 357.0799 + 27.7776 + 5.57657 = 390.434 … ≈ 390𝑐𝑚2
As shown above, the surface area for a bottle of fairly standard dimensions is significantly
larger than the optimised volume for a cylinder, which indicates that there is significant room
for improvement in terms of plastic use, even without the use of sphere bottles to minimize
plastic use. I decided to create a bottle that had similar dimensions to those of the optimized
cylinder, to see if I could create a more realistic shape that would minimize the plastic use at
the same time.

1
Dawkins, Paul. 2018 [Online]

7
I started out by lines on the graph to equal the approximate values found for the cylinder as
shown by the red dashed lines (Recall; 𝑟 = 4.30𝑐𝑚, ℎ = 8.60𝑐𝑚 ) and I then plotted
approximate points in the shape of a bottle to find a bottle shaped curve (as shown in the
image on page 6). Once I had an equation that fit for these approximate dimensions, I then
edited the parameters (in the same method as previously described) and adjusted the points
creating the equation of best fit, in order to fix the volume at 500cm3 (this process was again,
through trial and error as described before). The equation found was:

𝑦 = 2.232 × 10−4 𝑥⁶ − 1.23 × 10−3 𝑥⁵ − 4.867 × 10−2 𝑥⁴ + 5.939 × 10−1 𝑥³ − 2.418𝑥²

+ 3.762𝑥 + 3.134
The graph below shows the dimensions of the bottle (between 𝑥 = 0.11 and 𝑥 = 8.4) and
evidence of the trial and error process, moving the original points to adjust the equation.

I then used the formula for volume again, to verify that rotating this function around the x-
axis, would in fact give me a volume of approximately 500cm3.
𝑏
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝜋 ∫ 𝑓(𝑥)2 𝑑𝑥
𝑎
8.4
𝑉 = 𝜋∫ {2.232 × 10−4 𝑥⁶ − 1.23 × 10−3 𝑥⁵ − 4.867 × 10−2 𝑥⁴ + 5.939 × 10−1 𝑥³
0.11
− 2.418𝑥² + 3.762𝑥 + 3.134}2 𝑑𝑥 = 499.832 … ≈ 500𝑐𝑚3

8
Then, in order to determine whether my hypothesis that this bottle would be significantly
more plastic efficient than the other is correct, I need to once again, calculate the surface
area.
𝑏
𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 2𝜋 ∫ 𝑓(𝑥)√1 + {𝑓 ′ (𝑥)}2 𝑑𝑥
𝑎
′ (𝑥)
𝑓 = 13.392 × 10 𝑥 − 6.15 × 10 𝑥 − 19.468 × 10−2 𝑥 3 + 17.817 × 10−1 𝑥 2
−4 5 −3 4

− 4.836𝑥 + 3.762
Curved 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎:
8.4
= 2𝜋 ∫ (2.232 × 10−4 𝑥 6 − 1.23 × 10−3 𝑥 5 − 4.867 × 10−2 𝑥 4 + 5.939 × 10−1 𝑥 3 − 2.418𝑥 2 + 3.762𝑥
0.11
+ 3.134) √1 + {13.392 × 10−4 𝑥 5 − 6.15 × 10−3 𝑥 4 − 19.468 × 10−2 𝑥 3 + 17.817 × 10−1 𝑥 2 − 4.836𝑥 + 3.762}2 𝑑𝑥

𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 287.956 … ≈ 288𝑐𝑚2

𝐵𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋3.5193455362 = 38.911 … 𝑐𝑚2
𝑇𝑜𝑝 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋0.78328642952 = 1.92748 … 𝑐𝑚2
I used the same method as the previous bottle to calculate the top and bottom surface area.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 328.794 … ≈ 329𝑐𝑚2
This bottle shape, whilst maybe not quite as efficient as the cylinder (349cm2) is a significant
improvement on the plastic surface area of a typical plastic bottle (390cm2). Which shows
that there is significant room for improvement in the making of plastic bottles in terms of
reducing plastic use.

Comparison:
Comparison of Surface Areas
Tradtional Bottle Shape
Cone
Cube
Semi-Sphere
Cylinder
Improved Bottle Shape
Sphere

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Surface Area (cm2)

As can be seen in the comparison graph below, the shape with the lowest surface area, was
in fact the sphere. However, the improved bottle shape does not have too significantly larger
volume, which, considering it was not optimised unlike the sphere, indicates that there is the
definitely potential for a shape that has a lower overall surface area than the improved bottle
shape.

9
Evaluation & Conclusion:
Unfortunately, as idealistic as the idea of reducing plastic use in plastic bottles may be, there
are certain reasons and limitations as to why this is unlikely to become reality. Whilst one
could assume that reduced plastic use would also reduce costs, realistically, this may not be
the case (at least in the short term). Changing the shape of bottles would also mean that the
manufacturing process would have to change, with the cost of changing factories that
produce plastic bottles likely to be significant. You
may have noticed that plastic bottles tend to have an
indent in the bottom which adds quite a significant
amount of plastic in comparison to a flat bottom.
However, this is the point where the bottle is blow
moulded from in the manufacturing process. We
could assume that today, we probably have sufficient
technology that we could create flat bottomed
bottles, however again, it all comes down to cost and
it is unlikely that manufacturers would be willing to
Figure 7 Water Bottle Bottom
bear the cost of changing their process.

Additionally, whilst the dimensions I found for the improved bottle suggest that minimizing
the surface area means having a larger radius and a shorter bottle, there are also reasons this
may not be realistic. Primarily because of transport and shelving. A short, wide bottle takes
up a significantly larger area in transit and on supermarket shelves, which isn’t what large
commercial operations want as they want to optimise their space in transit and on
supermarket shelves. There is also the notion that the current water bottle shape fits perfectly
into someone’s hand, by widening the water bottle, it makes it slightly less user friendly and
it may make the bottle less visually pleasing. This is another problem with the sphere, whilst
being the most plastic efficient, it is probably the least space efficient and therefore won’t
become a standard bottle shape.

In terms of plastic reduction, this is obviously a very minimal step. However, at least it would
be a small step in the right direction towards reducing plastic and I believe we should be trying
to find more agreeable solutions to reducing plastic use. This may not prove to be cost
efficient, nor may it be a particular user friendly design, however, investigations such as this
can be highly thought provoking, therefore leading to possible innovation. Which is why I
believe it’s important to put some thought into what could be done to reduce
plastic use. This investigation was also limited in the aspect that I cannot
investigate every single possible option for a bottle shape, as there are an
infinite number of possibilities. For this reason, it is highly likely that there is
another shape which would be more plastic efficient that I have not found.

Perhaps if I wanted to extend this investigation further, I could try a

combination of shapes, for example a cylinder, with a cone on top or a cylinder
with a semi-sphere on top. I could also try other types of function, for example
a rotated quadratic to find a curved cone shape structure.
Figure 8 Cone on Cylinder

10
List of Figures:
Figure 1 (A Plastic Ocean): http://www.creativebrief.com/bite/issue/the-monster-of-the-
pacific/622
Figure 2 (Cylinder Diagram): https://math.tutorvista.com/geometry/cylinder.html
Figure 3 (Cone Diagram) : https://math.tutorvista.com/geometry/cylinder.html
Figure 4 (Cube Diagram) : https://brilliant.org/wiki/surface-area-basic/
Figure 5 (Sphere Diagram): http://maxturner.co/diagram-of-a-sphere.html
Figure 6 (Semi-Sphere Diagram) : https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-
solids/hemisphere.php
Figure 7 (Water bottle Bottom):https://www.istockphoto.com/ch/fotos/water-bottle-cap
Figure 8 (Cone on Cylinder):
http://wps.pearsoned.com.au/atsm10/41/10532/2696334.cw/content/index.html

11