Download

Berry Plastics Liner-less Detergent Cap






Advertisement
/ 28 []
Download Presentation
Comments
malo
From:
|  
(1157) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 136 | Added:
Rate Presentation: 4 0
Description:
Berry Plastics Liner-less Detergent Cap. Team 7. Tom Pepe Ross Rozansky Dale Heintzelman Cherish Wilford Glenn Catlin. Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe Sponsor Contact: John Tauber. About Berry Plastics. Leading manufacturer of injection molded packaging in the U.S.
Berry Plastics Liner-less Detergent Cap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.











- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Berry plastics liner less detergent capSlide 1

Berry PlasticsLiner-less Detergent Cap

Team 7

Tom Pepe

Ross Rozansky

Dale Heintzelman

Cherish Wilford

Glenn Catlin

Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe

Sponsor Contact: John Tauber

About berry plasticsSlide 2

About Berry Plastics

  • Leading manufacturer of injection molded packaging in the U.S.

  • Currently working on new product development around liner-less closures

  • With the partnership of UD and our sponsor, John Tauber, a new liner-less detergent cap will be designed

Problem definitionSlide 3

Problem Definition

  • The current cost of polypropylene is rising causing the cap liners to become more and more expensive

  • The cost of the liner is now close to 1/3rd of the total cost to make the cap

  • A new design is needed to eliminate the need for a liner

  • The design should be as effective and inexpensive as possible

Liner

Affected customersSlide 4

Affected Customers

  • Liquid detergent companies, i.e. Clorox

  • Retail stores, i.e. Walmart

  • General public

    • Elderly

    • Middle aged

    • Teenagers

Problem specificsSlide 5

Problem Specifics

Wants

  • Low Cost

  • Maximum Seal Time

  • Aesthetically Pleasing

  • Easy to Grip

  • Easy to Close

  • Simple Design

Constraints

  • Liner-less Design

  • Injection Molded

  • One Piece

  • Applied Torque

Want weightsSlide 6

Want Weights

Metrics and target valuesSlide 7

Metrics and Target Values

  • Gap Size – Area between cap and bottle does not change from current design

  • Cost - < $60 per 1000 caps

  • Appendage Thickness – None

  • Time Until Leak – 1 hr < t < 24hr

  • Reproducibility of Results - > 90%

  • Loss of Fluid – 0 mL

  • Torque Required – τ = 35 in-lbs

Metric weightsSlide 8

Metric Weights

Benchmark conceptsSlide 9

Benchmark Concepts

  • Solo Cap

    • Type of seal

      • Fin seal with bottle

  • XTRA Cap

    • Type of seal

      • Wedge seal to spout

        component

Fin

Wedge

Benchmark concepts contSlide 10

Benchmark Concepts cont.

  • All Cap

    • Type of seal

      • Cap lays flat against bottle land; tight tolerance

  • Febreze Cap

    • Type of seal

      • Wedge seal to bottle

        spike

Wedge

Benchmark cap leak testingSlide 11

Benchmark Cap Leak Testing

  • To determine which concepts work better than others

  • Tested with actual product (detergent) inside

  • Caps tightened to 35 in-lbs

  • Bottles lay flat on their side and checked periodically for leakage

  • Each benchmark tested twice

Leak test results from benchmark capsSlide 12

Leak Test Results From Benchmark Caps

  • All- Tied for best

    • -Excellent tolerance

  • XTRA- Tied for best

    • -Strong seal to deformable spout component

  • Febreze- Tied for worst

    • -Flimsy spike design

  • Solo- Tied for worst

    • -Fin offered weak seal with bottle

Our conceptsSlide 13

Our Concepts

Two Vertical Fins

  • Fray out to touch walls when screwed down

  • Force from cap walls and plastic fin resilience create seal with both bottle and spout

  • Problem- Space between outside fins and cap interior is too thin

  • Mold has a high probability to break over time from stress

Our concepts contSlide 14

Our Concepts Cont.

Flat Contact

  • Proven easy and successful

  • With proper tolerance cap sits flush on bottle top, creating a tight seal

  • Problem- Tolerance would have to be incredible

  • Top of bottle would have to be consistently manufactured completely flat

Our concepts cont1Slide 15

Our Concepts Cont.

Internal Wedge

  • Cap tightens to inside wall of spout while screwing down

  • Allows more surface contact

  • Allows least amount of liquid to directly reach the seal

  • Fluid pushes cap against bottle naturally

Primary cap designSlide 16

Primary Cap Design

  • Main Metrics

  • Metric #1- Gap Size (26%)

    • Tight fit

  • Metric #3- Appendage Thickness (18%)

    • No increases in thickness measured

    • from the base. i.e.- injection moldable

Prototype testingSlide 17

Prototype Testing

  • Same testing procedure as before with water

  • No seal lasted 1 hr.

Notch

Wedge

Change in problem scopeSlide 18

Change in Problem Scope

  • The seal may not be achievable if the bottle was manufactured incorrectly

  • Changing a spec on the bottle itself may be a cheaper and simpler solution than designing a new cap

  • Need to show evidence of the bottle being direct cause of failure before changing specs

Bottle testingSlide 19

Bottle Testing

  • Tests of current bottles and liner-less caps from Berry Plastics

  • 16 different bottles/16 different caps for a total of 256 tests

  • Bottles lay flat on

    their sides with paper

    towel underneath to

    observe leakage

Bottle testing contSlide 20

Bottle Testing cont.

  • Bottles filled with water

    for most extreme testing

  • Caps torqued to 35 in-lbs

    using torque meter

  • Max time limit of 1 hour

  • Results: 48% success rate

Testing resultsSlide 21

Testing Results

  • Bottles show more consistency

Bottle investigationSlide 22

Bottle Investigation

  • Possible Causes of Failure

    • Bottle land flatness

    • Wall thickness

    • Distance from start of thread to bottle land

CorrelationsSlide 23

Correlations

  • More consistent wall thickness promotes a longer seal

  • Flatter Bottles sealed longer

Bottle manufacturerSlide 24

Reaming process impact:

Wall thickness

Flatness

Land distance to thread

Bottle Manufacturer

New bottle testingSlide 25

New Bottle Testing

  • Success rate of 94.4%

Leak investigationSlide 26

Leak Investigation

Fin

Gap

No Gap

RecommendationsSlide 27

Recommendations

  • Implement new bottle specs with old cap design

    • Wall thickness variability- < 0.020 inches

    • Flatness- < 0.010 inches

    • End Lip variability- < 0.005 inches

    • Manufacturer limitations?

  • Create a new cap design

    • Greater wedge angle

    • Same fin from old cap

  • Do both

Wedge

Fin

Questions concerns thank youSlide 28

Questions/Concerns Thank You


Copyright © 2014 SlideServe. All rights reserved | Powered By DigitalOfficePro