Speak to a world-class expert now.
1-800-FOR-KKAI (1-800-367-5524)
info@kkai.com
PrimeTrack® Instant Conferencing
PrimeTrack® Project Management System (patent pending)
CENTER FOR RAPID RESPONSE ENGINEERING® SOLUTIONS
ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC CONSULTING SERVICES
Liquid Package Design For Line Optimization
Consultant
LKU is a Packaging Development Specialist, New Product Development Consultant, Packaging Design Consultant, Research and Development Consultant, Packaging Technology Expert with world-class expertise in packaging development and project management leadership in a variety of consumer product (CPM) and supplier roles.
Speak to this experienced, world-class expert now.
- Call (317) 735-4779
- E-mail lku@rapid-response-consulting.com
For additional or different expertise, browse other top-level expert resumes in Expert Testimony, Failure Analysis, Manufacturing Optimization, KKAI's Center for Rapid Response Engineering® Solutions and a host of other Engineering and Scientific Consulting services.
Learn how KKAI assembles expert teams of any size or skill set combination to meet our clients' needs on a rapid-response basis - no matter how complex the challenge.
Or, peruse our 400 case studies or 500 other expert resumes.
1. Problem Definition
The Client was packaging liquid chemical products in blow-molded polymer bottles, packaging 2 related but different product lines. They were using the same packaging machinery lines to pack both products, using packaging components that were identical in size and shape, only differing in package component color and graphics. The products were of varying size and weight, but all were between 16 oz. and 128 oz. label weight, and were packed 12 bottles/corrugated case for the smaller items, down to 4 bottles/case for the largest bottles. Each size product had its own filling line to minimize line changeover downtime. Changing from one product to the other on a given line required only changing packaging components, but not wholesale adjustments to the packaging equipment.
The separate Marketing organizations responsible for the different product lines determined that a redesign of the packaging components was in order. They wanted a new more modern "look" for the bottles, and they also wanted the bottles to look different from each other. This meant that each product line had separate design criteria for the bottles, which, at first glance, would result in lengthy and costly changeover time on the packaging lines to switch from one product line to the other, reducing plant efficiencies and production capacity.
2. Analysis
The 2 product lines were to continue with their existing bottle capacities and label weights, but the bottle look was to be different for each product line. Brand "A" wanted a modern, smoothly shaped bottle with a softer look, while brand "B" wanted to inspire strength and performance in their bottle shape, and so wanted a sturdier looking bottle. Separate Industrial Design firms were hired to provide the design concepts, and final concept selections were made. Upon review by the filling plant, the costs of running totally different bottles on the same lines became cost and capacity-prohibitive.
Upon receiving this project, the first step was to do a complete review of the design criteria for each product line and each bottle size to look for any possible similarities. It was quickly determined that closures and other components of the bottles would be identical except for color. The labels would be of different shape, and with the designs that were selected, the corrugated cases and partitions would be slightly different. The changeover time for these machines was comparatively short, and the process fairly simple to complete. The major difference and most time-consuming changeover would be for the bottles, so that the filling machines could properly handle them to be sure they were filled correctly and fully sealed, and then get them safely into their respective cases. Once this was verified, a plan of action was prepared and approved.
3. Actions
This project required some very careful attention to details in order to be completed successfully. The manufacturer of the filling equipment was contacted, and their engineering team was solicited for help. The filling machinery was very old and any parts or changeparts needed to be fabricated on special order. The plant had previously used contract companies rather than the machinery manufacturer for these part fabrications, mostly due to the lower cost. However, the equipment manufacturer had old drawings and machine capability information that became vital to solving the problem most efficiently.
By using bottle templates and models, along with existing machine diagrams and experience, it was determined that bottles looking completely different to a consumer could actually run on the same line with no need for changeparts, provided certain requirements were met. The bottles needed to be very close in unfilled and filled weight, had to be the same height and neck design, and most importantly, they needed to be identical in several key spots. By careful fabrication of templates to simulate changeparts, and having excellent bottle models, critical "touch points" on the bottles were identified. As long as those points were the same on each bottle size, the machine would "see" the different bottles as the same and no filler changeovers would be required.
4. Conclusion
The Client faced a substantial increase in packaging costs along with a potential shortfall in capacity due to the expected filling line changeover times. By carefully examining the overall situation, and analyzing and addressing all the contributing factors, the Client was able to achieve their desired goal for bottle differentiation without incurring huge upcharges in manufacturing costs. The secondary packaging components remained the same for both product lines, which simplified specifications and palletizing programs. The higher costs for machine parts from the machine manufacturer were easily offset by the design changes that simplified the filling operation and eliminated the long filling line changeover prospects. An added bonus was that additional "tweaks" by the equipment maker resulted in an average 5-10% increase in line production speeds on the machines in question.
Read other articles by this KKAI Associate:
Warehouse Load Collapse and Distribution Damage
| Packaging Development Specialist, New Product Development Consultant, Packaging Design Consultant, Research and Development Consultant, Packaging Technology Expert, packaging development and project management leadership in a variety of consumer product (CPM) and supplier roles. | |
| Resume of HAH | packaging consultant, failure analysis, expert consultant |
| Resume of EFZ | packaging, protective packaging expert consultant |
| Resume of LGC | packaging expert consultant |
| Resume of RIW | packaging consultant, expert |
| Resume of ZEV | pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturing, packaging, expert consultant |
To search for specific expertise, enter your search query (type of
expertise you are seeking) in the box below, choose to search the entire
Rapid-Response site or just resumes and brochures, then click the search button.
Please note that the list of resumes available online is a select subset of our
vast database. If your search of our site does not reveal the expertise you are
seeking, please call us toll-free (in the U.S.) at 1-800-367-5524 or
contact us for more information and we will gladly assist you in
locating the specific expertise you require.
Have an urgent litigation support or engineering and scientific consulting need? Contact KKAI now for world-class, expert rapid response.
1-800-FOR-KKAI (1-800-367-5524)
info@kkai.com
BACK TO THE TOP OF THIS PAGE
Kevin Kennedy & Associates, Inc.
Rapid Response Engineering® Solutions
3905 Vincennes Road, Suite 320
Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
(317) 536-7000 voice
(317) 536-7220 fax