Child Proof Dispensing Closure

1. Child Proof Dispensing Closure Senior Design – Final Review Team 8: Ken Cardillo, Patrice Hughes Ben Raab, Mike Washko Company Sponsor: Berry Plastics Team Advisor: Prof. Keefe

2. Presentation Overview • Project Goal • Wants/Constraints and Specifications • Concept Development and Selection • Testing and Analysis • Concept Iterations • Further Testing and Analysis • Hand-off plan to sponsor

3. John Tauber: Product Development and Engr. – Berry Plastics Frank Cassidy: Market Manager – Berry Plastics Johnson & Johnson Company Various Consumers Innovative cap addition to current product line Johnson & Johnson is interested as large contract customer Reduced Manufacturing Costs One piece design Increased Profits Key Customers Benefits to Berry Plastics

4. Project Goal …to conceive, develop, and refine concepts into a prototype for a child resistant dispensing closure that meets the needs of Berry Plastics in order to advance to the final stages of development.

5. Critical Issues • Defining “Child-Resistant” • Consumer Product Safety (CPSC) Testing • Incorporating this into the design • Prototype vs. End Product • Designing a cap physically similar to the existing Johnson & Johnson Cap • Threading issue

6. Prioritized Wants

7. Constraints • Able to be injection molded • Must not infringe on existing patents • Must adapt to Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil product line

8. Benchmarking Research • Existing caps on the market • Berry Plastic’s current “Child Resistant” dispensing enclosure • Patent research

9. Engineering Specifications • Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid: >5 • Number of pieces assembled: 1 • Number of independent operations needed to open: 2 • Estimated price due to volume of plastic: <$.05 • Max force per operation: 4 lbs • Scaled ranking of difficulty to be injection molded: 0-3

10. Concept Development Concepts: • Latch Mechanism • On base • On flip-top • On flip-top with action on base: • Rotating Cap Design • Squeeze and Twist Design

11. Concept Selection • Influencing factors • Technical feasibility • Conference calls with John Tauber • Discussions with Prof. Keefe • UDesign spreadsheets

12. Concept SelectionHook Mechanism on Base of Dispenser • Reasons for choice • Very similar in look to old J&J Lid • Tabs are more ergonomic • Easier to Injection Mold • Support from Marketing and Engineering Sponsors

13. Flip-top Hook Base Hook Applied Force Snap Fit Plug Concept Specifics

14. Concept Development • Tab deflection testing • Finite Element Analysis • Stereolithography prototypes

15. Feasibility Testing • Tab Deflection Testing • Sample: Existing Polypropylene Cap • Testing procedure: Instron machine • Force vs. Deflection for varying tab sizes

16. Feasibility Testing

17. Feasibility Testing

18. Pro/E Finite Element Analysis of Tab • Purpose: • Deflection vs. Force • - Further validate • physical tab deflection • testing • Results: • - Acceptable deflection • for given force range

19. Stereolithography Model • Purpose: to test latch mechanism • Material: SLA resin • 3D laser printing • Issue: Dimensional inaccuracy • Fueled new direction

20. Thick cuts: good for molding, bad for marketing Thin Cuts: bad for molding, good for marketing Problem: • Molding Issues • Appearance Issues Thick Cuts vs. Thin Cuts

21. Solution: • Deflecting wall • Sponsor satisfaction • Best fit for wants and design specifications • 1 piece assembly • Straight pull injection mold • Exterior identical to J & J cap • 2 independent motions to open • Easy to use

22. Flip-top Base Hook Flip-top Hook Deflection Cavity Snap-fit Plug Applied Force 2-4 lbs Base How It Works

23. Further Iterations • Physical Models • Combination of machined polypropylene and modified existing Berry Plastics caps • Two iterations • Helped to further validate design • FEA

24. Final Iteration • Cast Urethane Model • Casting process • Material properties • Application for proof of concept

25. CPSC Testing • Consumer Product Safety Commission test specifics : • Age: 42-51 months • Each child given 5 minutes to open package • After 5 minutes tester demonstrates how to open package • Each child given another 5 minutes to open package

26. Mock CPSC Testing • Purpose: To validate design through child testing • Mock test procedure • Child given chance to open • Child shown how to open cap • Child given additional chance to open • Performed utilizing U of D’s Early Childhood Development Center • 4 -5 year old children

27. Mock CPSC Testing Test Set-up: Failure • Only 2 children tested • Material failure, not design failure

28. Recommendations • Further Development • Testing subjects of all ages (focus groups) • Manufacture using Polypropylene • Design modifications • Possibly increase the undercut • Cap base flush with the lid

29. Hand-off Plan to Sponsor • Final memo • AutoCAD drawing files • Testing procedures and results • Surviving prototypes • Recommendations for further development

30. Cost Analysis • Theoretical Engineering Cost • $50 an Hour • 20 Hours a Week • $56,000 total • Actual Costs to Berry Plastics • 3 Sets of Prototypes • $1,325 Total • Actual Costs to University of Delaware • $500 for Machine Shop Use (25 hrs. @ $20/hr.)

31. Recap • Final design • Testing Methods • Instron • Mock CPSC • Design Validation • Machined Prototypes • Stereolithography • Recommendations

32. Questions?

33. Extra Slides

34. Estimated Projected Cost

38. Sectioned Views of Final Concept Ribbing Deflection Cavity Snap Fit Plug Undercut

39. Proof of Concept Plan • Marketing vs. engineering approach • Stereolithography prototypes by ProtoCAM • Three iterations of prototypes • Use surveys to receive feedback • Test group of 20 people • Wide range of people • At least three senior citizens • At least one child for first iteration • At least five children for second and third iteration