1 / 10

MTAC WORKGROUP #73 Soft Parcel Field Study

MTAC WORKGROUP #73 Soft Parcel Field Study. BACKGROUND. SELVAGE (excess packaging material) Determined to be the main focus for discussion Machinability Jamming of equipment Readability

liora
Download Presentation

MTAC WORKGROUP #73 Soft Parcel Field Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MTAC WORKGROUP #73 • Soft Parcel Field Study

  2. BACKGROUND • SELVAGE (excess packaging material) Determined to be the main focus for discussion • Machinability • Jamming of equipment • Readability • BMC and shipper facility tours showed no evidence of Selvage causing undue damage, or “debris” in the conveyance equipment • Machinability guidelines do not address size relationship of goods within packaging, to packaging itself • The workgroup determined the next step to be an actual field test using customer prepared parcels processed on parcel sorting equipment at a Bulk Mail Center

  3. Field Study Information • The field test was conducted at the Cincinnati BMC on Wednesday, June 17th, 2003. • The test was conducted to try and determine the effect of selvage on the machinability and readability of packages mailed in soft packaging material. • 42 test parcels were provided by the Brylane Corporation and each parcel was weighed and the overall dimensions, including selvage length and width, were measured and recorded prior to processing. All parcels had a postal routing barcode. • All 42 parcels were inducted into the primary parcel sorting machine and sent directly to the secondary via belt for final processing. • 29 parcels were re-inducted to provide more test results

  4. Field Study Results • Processing: • 32 of 42 parcels were processed correctly on the first test run - 76% • 22 of 29 parcels were processed correctly on the second run - 76% • 54 of 71 total parcels were processed correctly - 76%

  5. Field Study Results • Selvage Length • Avg. % of selvage length to total length Successful - 34 % (7 inches) • Failures - 36 % (7 inches) • Selvage Width • Avg. % of selvage width to total width Successful - 25 % (4 inches) • Failures - 28 % (5 inches)

  6. Field Study Results • Dimension & Weight • Avg. dimensions & weight Successful -- 21 x 18 x 5 – 2.03 lbs. • (32 of 54 exceeded 17 in. max. width) Failures -- 21 x 19 x 5 – 3.42 lbs. • (12 of 17 exceeded 17 in. max. width)

  7. Field Study Results • Barcode • 10 of 42 parcels received a postal applied barcode on the first run - 24 % • 9 of 20 parcels received a postal applied barcode on the second run - 31 % • 19 of 71 total parcels received a postal applied barcode - 27 %

  8. Field Study Results • Damage • 6 of 42 parcels had a tear on the first run - 14.2 % • 1 of 29 parcels had a tear on the second run - 3.4 % • 7 of 71 TOTAL parcels had a tear - 9.8%

  9. OBSERVATIONS • There was no obvious correlation between selvage length or width and successful processing. The successfully processed package had virtually the same dimensions and selvage as those that failed. • All customer applied barcodes tested successfully prior to processing, yet 27% received a postal applied barcode as well. • Close to 10% of the parcels tested had varying degrees of tear and this also warrants further study. • 12 of 44 parcels (27%) that exceeded the 17 inch width requirement failed to be processed properly • Only 76% of the parcels tested were successfully processed and the cycle time for the first run was in the two hour range.

  10. RECOMMENDATIONS • While this test had a very small sampling, it does indicate that there are many unresolved issues surrounding products mailed in soft packaging material • Factors to be considered Processing Environment • Machine Type • Dimensions & Weight Packaging Material • Mill of material • Selvage – Content vs. Capacity • Label • Rigidity • Non-uniform dimensions Readability • Effect of soft packaging material on readability • Material integrity end to end • Based on the results of the field study, it is recommended that the workgroup be sun-setted and that an extensive study be conducted by qualified experts to determine how the materiality of the above factors affects machinability and readability

More Related