1 / 28

Berry Plastics Liner-less Detergent Cap

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.

malo
Download Presentation

Berry Plastics Liner-less Detergent Cap

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. 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

  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

  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

  4. Affected Customers • Liquid detergent companies, i.e. Clorox • Retail stores, i.e. Walmart • General public • Elderly • Middle aged • Teenagers

  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

  6. Want Weights

  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

  8. Metric Weights

  9. Benchmark Concepts • Solo Cap • Type of seal • Fin seal with bottle • XTRA Cap • Type of seal • Wedge seal to spout component Fin Wedge

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  17. Prototype Testing • Same testing procedure as before with water • No seal lasted 1 hr. Notch Wedge

  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

  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

  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

  21. Testing Results • Bottles show more consistency

  22. Bottle Investigation • Possible Causes of Failure • Bottle land flatness • Wall thickness • Distance from start of thread to bottle land

  23. Correlations • More consistent wall thickness promotes a longer seal • Flatter Bottles sealed longer

  24. Reaming process impact: Wall thickness Flatness Land distance to thread Bottle Manufacturer

  25. New Bottle Testing • Success rate of 94.4%

  26. Leak Investigation Fin Gap No Gap

  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

  28. Questions/Concerns Thank You

More Related