Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I know that I should use some kind of honeycomb structure but can't work out in which orientation I should arrange it. I've looked at a few websites now and although I have a slightly better idea of the options, I can't work out how to model the problem and therefore calculate how many circles I could cut.

Specifically I would like to know:

~ How could I model this and what mathematics are involved?

~ What is the maximum number of 51 mm-diameter circles I can cut from a 330 mm × 530 mm rectangle?

~ What is the minimum size rectangle from which I could cut 16 circles?

(As you might suspect this is a real-life problem that I must solve, the disks that I will cut are to be used in a physics experiment but the material from which they are made is very expensive. It can however be purchased in any size rectangle, up to 330 mm × 530 mm.)


OK so I just discovered this question and the Wikipedia link contained therein. Whilst it is certainly related I am no closer to solving my current queries. (Other than if I were to order a square sheet of the material measuring 204 mm × 204 mm but I'm sure a rectangle would be more efficient.)

share|improve this question
In the title, and once in the text, you say that the long edge is 530 mm; but later you say 550 mm. –  John Bentin Aug 10 '11 at 15:36
Right you are @John, I'll correct the typo, thanks. –  qftme Aug 11 '11 at 10:38

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

For your problem, one choice is to order a rectangle with both dimensions a multiple of 51 mm, use a square pack, and get a density of $\frac{\pi}{4}\approx 0.785$

Another alternative is to use a hexagonal pack. If you have $k$ rows alternating $n$ and $n-1$ you want a sheet $51n \times (1+\frac{k \sqrt{3}}{2})51\ \ $mm, which packs $\lfloor n(k-\frac{1}{2})\rfloor$ circles. For your case, $n=6, k=12$ will fit $66$ circles in $306 \times 537$ mm, with a packing density of about $0.8205$

For $16$ circles, you could also use a $4 \times 4$ hexagonal pack. This would require $230=4.5\cdot 51 \times 184\ \ $mm, giving a density of $0.772$, so you could just buy $204 \times 204\ \ $mm and be better off.

share|improve this answer
I haven't proven that there is not a more efficient way that doesn't follow the standard packs. However, those usually just use up the border around a standard pack. Since you can buy any size you want, it is probably better to choose a standard layout and buy the proper sheet. I have rounded up to the even mm in my answer. –  Ross Millikan Aug 10 '11 at 15:37
The square packing has a constant density. The hexagonal pack will have a basic waste for a large area, plus waste proportional to the boundary. So you want the largest sheet (assuming it beats the square pack) because there are more interior points. –  Ross Millikan Aug 11 '11 at 5:38
Thanks @Ross, that's exactly the info I needed. I don't quite understand what you've written in this phase though: "$230=4.5\cdot 51 \times 184\ \ $mm", could you please clarify? –  qftme Aug 11 '11 at 10:41
@qftme: I was just indicating where 230 came from as $4.5\cdot 51$, then that you needed 184 in the other direction. I agree it wasn't clear. –  Ross Millikan Aug 13 '11 at 3:40

Since you don't say which websites you've looked at, I don't know whether you've discovered this one. Or this one. The main thing I get from these pages is that packing is hard, there are no general rules for optimal packings, but there are patterns that often work or are at any rate near-optimal.

share|improve this answer
I hadn't seen those particular links @Gerry. Thanks and +1. –  qftme Aug 11 '11 at 10:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.