A .1

THESIS

2

STATE UlANIVERSITYLBR REI

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIILIII III

3 1293 015706

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Package Design For A Gas Range Product Line

presented by

Jose Martinez Rivera

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS degree in Packaging

 

 

)cZ/wwl 8mg 2 M)

Jajor professor

Date April 30 1997

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

 

I PLACE ll RETURN BOX to roman thIo chockout from your rooord.
To AVOID FINES Mum on or before dot. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAGIC 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afflmotlvo Action/Equal Opportunity lnotltulon
Wan-m

 

 

PACKAGE DESIGN FOR A GAS RANGE PRODUCT LINE
By

José Martinez Rivera

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1997

ABSTRACT
PACKAGE DESIGN FOR A GAS RANGE PRODUCT LINE
By

Jose Martinez Rivera

The purpose of this study was to test a proposed methodology for incorporating
packaging concerns into the design process for a gas range product line. For this study
several prototypes were tested to investigate the fragility of the products in order to
decide the best packaging options and to improve the products design.

The conclusions were that this method has the advantage of taking into
consideration several factors that help to improve the quality of the product and ofl‘ers an
adequate package for the product at a minimum cost. However, future work has to be

done to evaluate in more detail the benefits of this methodology.

To my wife Pilar and my son Diego.

To my parents, Irma and José Maravasco
To my brothers, Lalo and Cuquin

To all my family and all my good friends

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my Director, Luis Hoyos, for giving me the opportunity to
study at Michigan State University. I also want to thank all the people of Mabe for their
help and support during my program, especially, Jorge Rodriguez Urtecho, Federico
Flores, Carolina Beltran, Ruben Tinoco, César Gutierrez, Ricardo Avila, Sergio Colin and
Juan Carlos Ortega.

I want to thank Dr. Gary Burgess, my major professor, for his guidance and all the
knowledge I received from him. Also, I want to thank Dr. S. Paul Singh and Dr. John
Gerrish for serving on my committee.

I want to thank all the good friends from “La Comunidad Latinoamericana” for
their support and fiiendship and my friends from the School of Packaging, specially Derek
McDowell and Rosa Mari Felifi.

Finally, I want to thank Jaime Podolsky from Polimex for letting me use one of his

drawings for this study.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS ................. 7
2.1 Gas range product line characteristics ............................................. 8
2.2 Fragility testing (phase one) ............................................................ 10
2.2.1 Vibration .......................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Shock ............................................................................... 15
2.3 Product improvement from fragility test results ............................... 27
2.4 Fragility testing (phase two) ............................................................ 31
2.4.1 Vibration .......................................................................... 31
2.4.2 Compression .................................................................... 54
2.4.3 Shock ............................................................................... 70
2.5 Product improvement fi'om fragility test results ............................... 88
CHAPTER 3
PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................... 91
3.1 Cost analysis ................................................................................... 91
3.2 Maximum packaging sizes .............................................................. 93
3 .3 The distribution environment .......................................................... 9S
3 .4 Analysis of difl‘erent alternatives ..................................................... 98
3.5 Proposal using a see-through packaging ......................................... 102
3 .6 Cushioning design ........................................................................... 103
3.7 Packaging description ..................................................................... 111
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 113
APPENDIX A - LIST OF CODES FOR TABLE 2 .......................................... 116

 

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................. 117

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Mabe Facilities ......................................................................................... 4
Table 2 - Prototype-product general characteristics ................................................. 9
Table 3 - Description of test products (phase 1) ...................................................... 10
Table 4 - Vibration test results for sample P-242-test 1 ........................................... 12
Table 5 - Vibration test results for sample P-242 -test 2 .......................................... 12
Table 6 - Vibration test results for sample E-204 -test 1 .......................................... 12
Table 7 - Vlbration test results for sample E-204 -test 2 .......................................... 13
Table 8 - Test results for sample P-242 (Method A) ................................................ 17
Table 9 - Test results for sample E-204 (Method A) ................................................ 21
Table 10 - Description of test products (phase 2) .................................................... 31
Table 11 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A-testl .................................... 33 '
Table 12 - Vlbration test results for sample 1504L-A -test 2 .................................... 33
Table 13 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A -test 3 .................................... 33
Table 14 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A -test 4 .................................... 36
Table 15 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-A -test 5 .................................... 36
Table 16 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-B -test 1 .................................... 3 8
Table 17 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-B -test 2 .................................... 3 8
Table 18 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-B -test 3 .................................... 3 8

vii

Table 19 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-A -test 1 .................................... 39

Table 20 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-A -test 2 .................................... 39
Table 21 - Vibration test results for sample 42001—B -test 1 .................................... 39
Table 22 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-B -test 2 .................................... 41
Table 23 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 -test 1 ....................................... 41
Table 24 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 -test 2 ....................................... 41
Table 25 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 -test 3 ....................................... 43
Table 26 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 -test 4 ....................................... 43
Table 27 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 -test 1 ...................................... 43
Table 28 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 -test 2 ...................................... 47
Table 29 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 -test 3 ...................................... 47
Table 30 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 -test 4 ...................................... 47
Table 31 - Vibration test results for sample EMC203 -test 1 ................................... 49
Table 32 - Vibration test results for sample EMC203 -test 2 ................................... 49
Table 33 - Compression loads applied to each product ............................................ 56
Table 34 - Results of compression tests ................................................................... 68

Table 35 - Shock Machine Calibration Values: 2 ms Half-sine Programmers (Bare Table)

............................................................................................................................... 7 1
Table 36 - Shock Machine Calibration Values: Gas Programmer (Bare Table) ......... 71
Table 37 - Shock test results for sample 42001-A (Method A) ................................ 72
Table 38 - Shock test results for sample 1504L-A (Method A) ................................ 76
Table 39 - Shock test results for sample EV201 (Method A) ................................... 77

viii

Table 40 - Shock test results for sample EM240 (Method A) .................................. 79

Table 41 - Shock test results for sample EMC203 (Method A) ................................ 81
Table 42 - Shock test results for sample 42001-B (Method B) ................................ 82
Table 43 - Shock test results for sample lSO4L-B (Method B) ................................ 84
Table 44 - Packaging costs for a 20 inch range (current model) ............................... 92
Table 45 - Product sizes according to the product line characteristics ...................... 94
Table 46 - List of Minimum Performance Specification tests ................................... 97

Table 47 - Most critical conditions of temperature and humidity in Mexico warehouses

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO E 1

Table 48 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for DYILITE® D1958 12” 105

Table 49 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 1.25 in Cushion .............. 107
Table 50 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 1.00 in Cushion .............. 107
Table 51 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 0.75 in Cushion .............. 108

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Proposed methodology for product/package design in Mabe ......................... 6

Figure 2 - Sample P-242 with corrugated board protector ............................................. 11
Figure 3 - Top view of sample E-204 with corrugated board protector .......................... 14
Figure 4 - Hinge of glass lid .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 5 - Shock Machine ............................................................................................. 16
Figure 6 - Detail of the gas tube support ....................................................................... 18
Figure 7 - Result of displacement of main gas tube ........................................................ 18
Figure 8 - Detail of rear view of sample P-242 .............................................................. 19
Figure 9 - Sample P-242 with glass support bent ........................................................... 19
Figure 10 - Sample P-242 with damaged cabinet (rear right bottom corner) .................. 20
Figure 11 - Sample P-242 with damaged cabinet (right wall) ......................................... 20
Figure 12 - Detail of rear view of sample E204 ............................................................. 22
Figure 13 - Support of glass panel bent in E-204 sample ............................................... 22
Figure 14 - Panel damaged of E-204 sample .................................................................. 23
Figure 15 - Misalignment of glass lid of sample E-204 ................................................... 24
Figure 16 - Damage of cover finish of sample E—204 ..................................................... 24
Figure 17 ‘- Loose control knobs of sample E-204 ......................................................... 25
Figure 18 - Front view of inner glass oven support ........................................................ 28

Figure 19 - Rear view of inner glass oven support ......................................................... 28

Figure 20 - Oven door support ...................................................................................... 29
Figure 21 - Glass lid hinge ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 22 - Lower cabinet support ................................................................................ 30
Figure 23 - Gas system support ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 24 - Sample lSO4L-A with damaged handle ....................................................... 34
Figure 25 - Sample 1504L-A without cover and accessories (Test 1) ........................... 35
Figure 26 - Sample 1504L-A with PS base and PS protectors ....................................... 37
Figure 27 - Sample 42001-A without cover and accessories (Test 1) ............................. 40
Figure 28 - Sample EV201 on the vibration table .......................................................... 42
Figure 29 - Sample EV201 with accessories inside the oven .......................................... 44
Figure 30 - Oven floor of sample EM240 bent .............................................................. 45
Figure 31 - Sample EM240 on the vibration table .......................................................... 46
Figure 32 - Corrugated base .......................................................................................... 48
Figure 33 - Cover attached to the cabinet with duct tape (sample EMC203) .................. 50
Figure 34 - Sample EMC203 .................................... ................................................... 50
Figure 35 - Sample EMC203 with corrugated base ....................................................... 51
Figure 36 - Lansmont compression tester ...................................................................... 55
Figure 37 - Sample 1504L with honeycomb protector ................................................... 57
Figure 38 - Sample 42001 with PS protector ................................................................. 58
Figure 39 - Example of constant rate control configuration .......................................... 60
Figure 40 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-A ........................................... 61

Figure 41 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-A with concentrated load ....... 61

Figure 42 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-B ........................................... 62
Figure 43 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-B with concentrated load ....... 62
Figure 44 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-A ........................................... 63
Figure 45 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-A with concentrated load ....... 63
Figure 46 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-B ............................................ 64
Figure 47 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-B with concentrated load ........ 64
Figure 48 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EV201 .............................................. 65
Figure 49 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EV201 with concentrated load .......... 65
Figure 50 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EM240 ............................................. 66
Figure 51 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EMC203 ........................................... 66
Figure 52 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EMC203 with concentrated load ....... 67
Figure 53 - Sample 42001-A over shock machine .......................................................... 73
Figure 54 - Damaged corner of sample 42001-A ........................................................... 74
Figure 55 - Sample 42001-A after last drop ................................................................... 75
Figure 56 - Sample EV201 free of damage .................................................................... 78
Figure 57 - Cover of sample EV201 .............................................................................. 78
Figure 58 - Deformation of range base in sample EM240 .............................................. 80
Figure 59 - Lower corner of sample 42001-B ................................................................ 83
Figure 60 - Rear view of sample 1504L-B ..................................................................... 85
Figure 61 - Damage Boundary Curve for sample 42001 ................................................ 87
Figure 62 - Damage Boundary Curve for sample 1504L ................................................ 87

Figure 63 - New oven floor design ................................................................................ 89

Figure 64 - New supports of the glass for the oven door ............................................... 89
Figure 65 - Electric burners clip. ................................................................................... 90
Figure 66 - Gantt chart of a project to record environmental distribution events ............ 96
Figure 67 - Corrugated fibre box package ..................................................................... 99
Figure 68 - PS Package ............................................................................................... 101
Figure 69 - Dynamic cushion for a 6 in drop ................................................................ 109
Figure 70 - PS base design .......................................................................................... 110
Figure 71 - See-through package ................................................................................ 112

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to test a proposed methodology for incorporating
packaging concerns into the design process for a product by designing a package for a gas
range product line which was at this point, in a development stage. This methodology
ofi‘ers some advantages because the product can be improved to make it less fi'agile in
order to reduce packaging costs. In the past, manufactured product was never modified to
minimize damage during distribution, even after a high level of damage indicated that the
product itself was too fiagile for the distribution environment. The only alternative, then,
was to accept the high costs of overpackaging the product. Now, however, we avoid
heavy distribution damage by using the results of telltale fragility tests [1].

The gas range product line design development is a project of Mabe Technology
and Development Center. Mabe is a major manufacturer of consumer appliances and all
the product development is done in this center located in Queretaro, Mexico. In this
center, highly qualified technicians and engineers work on the development of new ideas
and technologies which allows for continuous improvement in performance and the
introduction of new features to the marketplace. These engineers work very close with

Mabe's marketing team.

Mabe is a Latin-American company that manufactures kitchen and laundry
appliances. It was established in 1946 and by 1960 was the number one exporter of
appliances in Mexico. Today Mabe is the largest manufacturer of appliances in the
Mexican market and in the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America. During 1995, a
total of 2.8 million units were manufactured and sold.

Currently, Mabe has thirteen manufacturing facilities located in Latin America in
which they produce high quality appliances such as refligerators, cooking and laundry
products. These facilities are strategically located in difi‘erent countries to satisfy the
demand of a wide array of customers. The organization produces appliances for 14 brands
including Mabe and General Electric. It exports its products to the US, Canada, the
Caribbean, and most of Latin America, as well as some European countries. Mabe has a
very high standard of quality and manufactures appliances that range fi'om basic to high-
end products.

In a highly competitive industry, Mabe is firlly dedicated to the execution of a
strategy designed to attain and maintain leadership in Latin America. This strategy is based
on what they have called "The Four Basic Processes of the Organization". Technology,
Manufacturing, Marketing and Service. These functions are the foundation of the culture
and spirit of the organization and are supported by their infiastructure.

Mabe continuously pursues new opportunities in high-growth markets with the
goal of expanding and strengthening their leadership in the Americas. Mabe has been
exporting since 197 8. They export refiigerators, ranges, cook tops and washing machines
to the USA, Canada, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. One in every 3

gas ranges sold in the US is manufactured in the San Luis Potosi Factory.

In 1994 Mabe broke the million units mark for the first time by exporting
1,122,943 units to 33 countries. Taking into account units manufactured in all operations
throughout Latin America, they sold 2.8 million units in 1995. Mabe manages several
brands in the region. The main ones in Mexico are: ”Mabe”, ”General Electric”, ”IBM"
and "Easy”. In addition, Mabe also commercializes the ”Regina” brand in Venezuela, the
”Centrales” and "Regis" brands in Colombia and the "Durex” brand in Ecuador and Peru.

The gas range product line now in development will substitute the actual product
line manufactured in the Mexico City range facility. Table 1 shows that these ranges are
for the Mexican market and the Central American market as well. At this point, Mabe has
some information on the distribution environment for these places. This information will
be helpful in defining some aspects of the packaging design. A selection of a design drop
height and an acceleration-fiequency profile is recommended as the first step in package
design [2].

Prior to the packaging design, a series of tests should be performed on different
prototypes. A package designer’s goal is to be sure that the G level transmitted to the item
by the cushion is less that the G level that will cause the item to fail [2]. One way is to
strengthen the product in order reduce packaging costs and in general, the cost of the

entire product/package system [1].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table l - Mabe Facilities
Product No. of Location Markets
Plants

Ranges 4 San Luis Potosi (Mex) US, Canada, Mexico
Mexico City (Mex) Mexico, C. America
Maracaibo (Venezuela) Venezuela, Colombia
Guayaquil (Ecuador) Andean Pact.

Refiigerators 3 Queretaro (Mex) U. 8, Mexico, CA
Mexico City (Mex) Mexico, C.A. & SA
Manizales (Colombia) Andean Pact.

Washers 2 Monterrey (Mex) Mexico, CA & S.A.
Saltillo (Mex) Mexico, CA, S.A. & U.S.

Compressors 1 San Luis Potosi (Mex) Worldwide.

Motors 1 Monterrey (Mex) Latin America

Transmissions 1 Saltillo (Mex) Mexico, Venezuela

Plastic injection & 1 Queretaro (Mex)

Steel Stampirgs

 

 

 

 

Also in this study, consideration will be given to other factors such as packaging

size. With a minimum product/package size, more products can be shipped and so

transportation costs of the product can be reduced. Shipping costs and material costs

increase as the size of the package increases, and even small reductions can effect

significant savings [3].

This study is very important to Mabe because it is the first step toward changing

the current methodology for product design. in Mabe. Figure 1 shows the proposed

 

methodology for integrating packaging into the product design and development. One of
the objectives of this study will be to determine if this methodology has benefits over the
current process, which is to design the product first and then package it later. The

investigation of the distribution environment will not be covered in this study because of

equipment and time constraints and so some assumptions will be made to cover this

aspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 W
Product Optimum
Product Prototype Ocular . Dream-choc "Burl?” "
balm _ improvement Danton system Conditions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1...... s
:
finally 5
' v
Wpaeraoe
Onion 8W
l
lnvkomrnhtalbata
Raeordlng
-8hock
0mm
-comprualon
W Narration
-&wlronmentalFactora
[flatworm Hunldlty.atc)
‘Aaaamhlyuna
Warehouse
mom
TranapoMon
In.

Figure l - Proposed methodology for product/package design in Mabe

Chapter 2

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

In order to investigate the product characteristics related to fragility, Mabe had a
total of six prototypes fabricated in the Mabe Technology and Development Center. Three
of these prototypes were part of the first design stage. They were shipped in wood
containers fi'om Queretaro, Mexico to the School of Packaging at Michigan State
University in East Lansing Michigan. All three prototypes were tested for vibration and
two for shock. One of these three prototypes (sample P-203 in Table 3) was damaged
during transportation before the tests. Therefore, the results of the vibration test were not
included in this study because they were not representative.

The information obtained fi'om these tests was reported to Mabe’s product
designers in order to correct those parts of the product which were subject to damage. In
the second design stage, a series of new prototypes were built. The improved design of
these ranges was based on the functionality tests and the shock and vibration tests results
fi'om stage one. Three of these prototypes were sent to the School of Packaging for
vibration, compression and shock tests. Another four gas ranges from the actual
production line of the Mexico City facility were sent for fragility testing in order to make a

comparison between the actual product and the new design.

2.1 Gas range product line characteristics

The market for these ranges consists principally of Latin America countries
including Mexico. In these countries, small ranges are very popular. Therefore, it is
desirable to offer the customer a good quality product with different features and
characteristics regardless of the appliance size. Some of these characteristics were good
packaging challenges because these features often increase the number of critical elements
of the product. The complete definition of the product line of these ranges is at this
moment under development. For this study, the most representative models were chosen
for testing. Table 2 shows a list of the principal characteristics of the prototypes used in

this study.

Table 2 - Prototype-product general characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCEPT MODEL P-203 E-204 P-242 1504L 42001 EV201 EM240 EMC203
A, B A
TYPES C, D D D C C C C B
E, F
SIZE 20” s a s a e a
24” t 0
BACK GUARD ‘ " '1‘ '1'
GLASS LID ‘ t *
CR1 2 2
PE
TOP BURNERS QTS
(MS 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 2
SQA
CR-2 2 2 l
OVEN QTY 1 l l l l
BURNERS
OVERALL DEPTH 23.3 23.3 23.3 27.9 27.3 23.6 23.25 23.6
DIMENSIONS HEIGHT 45 28.65 37 34.8 34.8 35.8 37.5 27.5
(in) WIDTH 20 20 24 20 20 20 24 20
NETWEIGHT (lb) 76.63 83.42 82.12 93.7 84.9 83.8 106.9 75.4
(kg) 34.76 37.84 37.25 42.5 38.5 38.0 48.5 34.2
FRONT enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel
FINISH BACK Zn Zn Zn Galv. Zn Zn Zn Zn coated
coated coated coated steel coated coated coated steel
steel steel steel steel steel steel
SIDES Pre- Galv. Pre- Pre- Pre- Pre- ' Pre- Galv.
painted steel painted painted painted painted painted steel
steel, steel, steel, steel, steel, steel,
enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel enamel

 

 

10

2.2 Fragility testing (phase one)

2.2.1 Vibration
The following tests were conducted according to ASTM D3580-90: Standard Test
Method of Vlbration Test of Products (Vertical Sinusoidal Motion). The products tested

are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 - Description of test products (phase 1)

 

 

 

 

Product Model Sample Code
20" Gas range P-203 P-203
24" Gas range P-242 P-242
20" Gas Range E-204 E-204

 

 

 

 

 

The purpose of this test is to determine the resonant frequencies of these products in order
to generate information that will help improve the product design as well as the package
design. The procedure according to ASTM D3 580-90 is to place the product on a
vibration table and set the table to gradually sweep through a frequency range from 3 to
100 Hz and return. The acceleration level was 0.5 g’s throughout the sweep. This
procedure is supposed to replicate what goes on in most trucks and rail environments and
so substitutes for the distribution analysis portion of Figure l for now. A Lansmont
Vibration Test Machine (model 10,000-10 with 152 X 152 cm square table, 12,000 lb
seismic base, one-G supports, 10 gallon/minute 3000 psi hydraulic power supply, and
Touch Test control and instrumentation system) was used. Samples E-204 and P242 were
tested with and without a corrugated protector (see Figure 2). The results and conditions

for each product are described in Tables 4 to 7.

 

Figure 2 - Sample P-242 with corrugated board protector

12

Table 4 - Vibration test results for sample P-242 -test 1

 

 

Resonant fiequencies (Hz) Remarks

4-7 Banging fi'om inside the oven (electric
element of the oven)

8-10 Cabinet resonance (vibration causes
range to move)

20-30 Glass lid resonmcgglgs lid ML

 

 

Conditions: the range was tested as received, without packaging protectors and with the
burners and glass lid in place.
. Damage: the control knob popped out at 23 Hz. Screw loose fiom the oven hinge.

 

 

Table 5 - Vibration test results for sample P-242 -test 2 .

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) I Remarks
21-30 Most critical fi'equencies. Glass lid
resonance

 

 

Conditions: with burners and glass lid protector in place in order to see if the unit
should be shipped whole, or in pieces. Electric burners were taped.
. Damage: no critical damage. Screw loose from the oven hinge;

 

Table 6 - Vibration test results for sample 13-204 -test 1

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant fiequencies (Hz) Remarks
7-12 Resonant vibration of glass lid
26 Noise coming from cabinet
30-40 Vibration causes the range to move
40-50 Burners banging
80 Noise from oven
Conditions: the range was tested as received, without packaging protectors and burners
in place.
‘ Damage: no critical damagL

 

 

 

13

Table 7 - Vibration test results for sample E-204 -test 2

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks
21-30 Continuous banging of the oven lid
26-28 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door
Most critical fi'equencies at 20-21 Hz

 

Conditions: with burner protectors and glass lid protector taped to cabinet (see Figures
3 and 4).
Damage: no critical damage.

 

 

Improvements

Based on the results of these first vibration tests performed on the two samples ,P-242 and
E-204, a protector element was designed to keep the glass lid fiom banging. This
protector was made from corrugated board to prevent banging and to also keep the oven
door closed and protect the control knobs from impact. Also, for sample P-242, the gas
burners were attached to the range cover with tape using a single corrugated board
protective element. For sample E-204, the protector element was improved by using one
element for all gas burners (see Figure 3). The ranges were tested with these packaging
elements and even though the natural frequencies of the critical elements were the same as
in the previous tests, the protector elements maintained these parts free of damage. The
vibration tests showed the need for a new hinge design because some loosening of the
glass lid fiom the hinge and the screw fiom the cabinet hinge were observed. The

protector for the glass lid did not help to prevent this problem (see Figure 4).

 

Figure 4 - Hinge of glass lid

15

2.2.2 Shock

The following tests were conducted according to ASTM Standard D3332-93: Standard
Test Method for Mechanical-Shock Fragility of Products Using Shock Machines [5]. The
products tested are listed in Table 1. This test is intended to provide data on product
shock fiagility that can be used in choosing optimum-cushioning materials or packaging
components for shipping containers and for product redesign. These tests can also provide
information about the performance of the product at difl‘erent drop heights. According to
ASTM D3332-93, only Test Method A (Critical Velocity Shock Test) was performed
because there was only one sample of each model. The Shock Machine is shown in Figure
5 (MT S 846 shock test system). Tables 8 and 9 show the results for results of the shock

test.

 

hock Machine

17

Table 8 - Test results for sample P-242 (Method A)

 

 

 

 

 

Drop # Machine AV g's Duration Damage
Drop Height (in/sec) (milliseconds)
(in)

1 3 75.3 137.9 2.31 No damage

2 5 106.3 209 2.19 No damage

3 6 ‘/4 113.5 219.4 2.19 The support for the
gas tube was loose. It
was tight for the next
drop (see Figure 6).
Very slight damage to
the cover

4 8 129.3 264.2 2.04 The main gas tube was

out of place ( see
Figure 7). The steel
support was bent (see
Figure 8). Slight
damage to the cabinet
and oven door hinge.
The cover was
deformed (see Figure

8)

 

 

5 10 1/6 146.3 304.7 2.00 Front glass panel
supports were bent
(see Figure 9). The
cabinet was severely
damaged on the
bottom and sides (see
Fi cs 10 and 11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bwaoofl-‘M"

 

Figure 7
- R
esult of displacement of
main
gas tube

 

Figure 9 - Sample P-242 with glass support bent

20

 

Figure 10 - Sample P-242 with damaged cabinet (rear light bottom comer)

 

Figure 11 - Sample P-242 with damaged cabinet (right wall)

21

Table 9 - Test results for sample E-204 (Method A)

 

Drop #

Machine
Drop
Height
(in)

AV
(in/sec)

8'8

Duration

(milliseconds)

Damage

 

3

77.2

141.1

2.35

Damage to the cabinet in
rear upper and lower
corners (see Figure 12)
Note: these corners were
damaged before, however;
after this drop the damage
was more evident. The
lower front part of the
glass panel was bent (see
Fi re 13)

 

 

41/16

93.4

179.6

2.23

Front glass panel fell down
because the lower support
was bent at impact (see
Figures 14)

The glass lid was out of
place because the rear
comers were bent (see
Figure 15). Inner lower
glass support was bent
(see Figure 14). Enamel
paint ofi‘ the cover (see

Figure 1Q

 

103.3

200. l

2.19

Back panel was bent. Inner
lower glass support was
bent (see Figure 14).
Enamel paint went ofl‘
from the cover (see Figure
16). Loose controls (see

Figure 17)

 

 

 

111.1

 

214.7

 

2.16

 

Increased level of same

damages

 

 

22

 

Figure 12 - Detail of rear view of sample E204

 

 

 

Figure 13 - Support of glass panel bent in E-204 sample

23

 

Figure 14 - Panel damaged of E-204 sample

24

 

Figure 15 - Misalignment of glass lid of sample E-204

 

Figure 16 -Damage of cover finish of sample E-204

25

 

Figure 17 - Loose control knobs of sample E-204

26

Conclusions

Shocks can happen any time during the distribution cycle. These shocks are caused mainly
by dropping the product/package. Since Mabe does not have data available on the average
drop height, a 6 inch drop was used as the design drop height. This drop height is also
used in the GE Appliance Test Method No. E50L008 “Free Fall Drop Test” [6].

For this test, it was important to know if the products needed a cushion for the design

drop height. In order to say, the velocity change for a 6 inch drop can be calculated using

the following equation:
AV = (1+ e)‘/2gh [1]

where AV is the velocity change , e is the coeficient of restitution, g is the acceleration
due to gravity (3 86.4 in sec’), and h is the drop height. The coemcient of restitution can
vary depending on different factors. In the vast majority of packaging situations, the
coeflicient of restitution can be found to lie in the range .3 to .5 [7]. Using e=.5 as a worst
case scenario, AV will be 102.2 ill/sec. From the shock tests, sample P-242 would need a
velocity change greater than 106 in/sec to damage the product. In this case then, it was
possible to design a package with little or no cushion. Another way to view the results is
to apply the following rule [7],

Equivalent F roe Fall Impact Velocity = Shock Table Velocity Change [2]

For sample P-242, the critical velocity change was 106.3 in/sec and therefore the
equivalent free fall drop height would be 106.32 /(2 x 386.4) = 14.6 inches, which is larger
than the design drop height, and so a cushion is not needed. For the other product,
however, the critical velocity change was found to be less than 77.2 in/sec. In this case this

product is not strong enough to withstand a drop fiom 6 inches because 77 .2 in/sec is less

27

than 102.2 in/sec. Applying the rule to calculate an equivalent drop height for this test, a
free fall drop height of 77.22 /(2 X 386.4) = 7.7 inches would be required to damage it.
This is only slightly higher than the design drop height, and so we have to consider that the
product will probably be damaged in this drop.

These tests gave some input about the performance of some parts during impact. Some of
the damage observed was reported to the Mabe product design department and some
changes were made based on the results, some of which are discussed in the following

section.

2.3 Product improvement from fiagility tests results.

According to the damage reported fi'om the vibration and shock tests, the following parts
were improved:

- The inner glass oven support new has a more rigid design and holds the glass oven door
much better(see Figures 18 and 19).

- The oven door support is also stronger than the previous design (see Figure 20).

- The glass lid hinge has a more integrated design. The glass is attached to the hinge with

two screws instead of an adhesive. The hinge has a better system that makes it more rigid
and more functional (see Figure 21).

- The lower cabinet support was reinforced to make it more rigid (see Figures 22)

- The gas system supports were redesigned to improve strength and rigidity. (see Figure

23).

28

 

WM ,W,.

'23...

 

 

 

Figure 19 - Rear view of inner glass oven support

29

 

Figure 21 - Glass lid hinge

30

 

22 - Lower cabinet support

 

- Gas system support

Figure 23

2.4 Fragility testing (phase two)

The products tested in this phase are difl‘erent from the previous tests. These products are

also representative of the product line and they include the changes reviewed in section

2.3. Two products fiom the current production line are also being tested for comparison

purposes.

2.4.1 Vibration

The following tests were conducted according to ASTM Standard D3580-90 Standard

Test Method of Vibration Test of Products (Vertical Sinusoidal Motion). The products

tested are listed in Table 10.

Table 10 - Description of test products (phase 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Model Sample Code Application

20" Gas range 1504L 1504L-A Domestic

20" Gas range 1504L 1504L-B Domestic

20" Gas range 42001 42001-A Export

20" Gas range 42001 42001-B Export

20" Gas range EV201 EV201 Economic
Model

24" Gas range EM240 EM240 With glass lid

20" Dual Fuel Range EMC203 EMC203 Built-in

 

 

32

The purpose of this test is to determine the resonant frequencies of these products in order
to generate information that will help improve the product design as well as the package
design. The procedure according to ASTM D3 580-90 is to place the product on a
vibration table and set the table to gradually sweep through a frequency range from 3 to
100 Hz and return. The acceleration level was 0.5 g’s throughout the sweep. A Lansmont
Vibration Test Machine (model 10,000-10) was used. The conditions and results for each

product are described in Tables 11 to 32.

33

Table 11 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A - test 1

 

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks

8 Resonant vibration of rear post

9.8 Banging noise fi'om the back

15-48 The parts inside the oven hit the oven
walls.

 

Conditions: corrugated protectors, with back-guard and burners placed inside the oven.
These parts are packaged with a shrink film. The oven rack is over the oven floor and it
also attaches the lid of the oven floor. The handle of the oven was bent. See Figure 24.

Damag : the oven wall had small scratches.

 

Table 12 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A - test 2

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

3-36 Continuous banging of the oven lid

21 .6-28 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door. Most critical at 20—21 Hz.

 

 

Conditions: without the cover and accessories placed inside the oven. Here the oven
rack was not over the oven floor. See Figure 25
, Damage: screws missing of the right lower oven wall

 

Table 13 - Vibration test results for sample 1504L-A-test 3

 

 

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks

8-9 Resonant vibration of rear post

22-24 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door (most critical frequencieg

 

Conditions: without the lower oven floor lid and side walls. Without the accessories
inside the oven. Without the cover

Damage: no damage

 

 

34

 

 

 

Figure 24 -Sample 1504L-A with damaged handle

35

 

 

 

Figure 25 - Sample 1504L-A without cover and accessories (test 1)

36

Table 14 - Vibration test results for sample 1504LA - test 4

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

8-9 Resonant vibration of rear post

13-16 The parts inside the oven hit the oven
walls

22-25 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
the oven door (most critical
frequencies)

37-42 Noise from top (not critical).

 

 

Conditions: with the cover and corrugated protectors. Without the lower oven floor lid
and the side walls. With the rack over the oven floor. With the accessories inside the
oven

‘ Damage: no damage

 

Table 15 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-A - test 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

8 Resonant vibration of rear post

11-17 The parts inside the oven hit the oven
walls

19-27 Resonant vibration of cabinet and oven
door (most critical fiequencies at 20-21
H2)

3440 Noise from top (not critical)

Conditions: same as test 4 but with Polystyrene foam base and PS protection for handle.

With floor and side walls of the lower oven. The missing screws were replaced. See

Figure 26

Damage: no damage‘

37

 

 

Figure 26 - Sample 1504L-A with PS base and PS protectors

Table I6 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-B -test 1

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz)

Remarks

 

19.5-23

 

Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door

 

 

, Damage: no damage

Conditions: without oven floors, accessories and cover.

 

Table 17 - Vibration test results for sample lSO4L-B -test 2

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

8-10 The oven floor lid was banging

16 Banging sound from inside.

15-20 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door

48 Resonant vibration of the oven floor

 

(slight resonance)

 

 

Damage: no damage

Conditions: with the cover and oven floor lids. Without the accessories inside the oven
floors. The rack was inside the oven

Table 18 - Vibration test results for sample “(ML-B -test 3

 

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks
9—16 Banging sounds from inside the oven.
18-24 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and

oven door (most critical frequencies
from 18-22 Hz)

 

 

Conditions: with cover and corrugated protections. With the lower oven floor lid and
side walls. With the rack over the oven floor. With the accessories inside the oven. With
Polystyrene foam base and PS protection for handle

. Damage: screw loose from lower oven wall. Scratches on oven walls

 

 

 

39

Table 19 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-A -test 1

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks

17-29 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door ‘

40 Resonant vibration probably from the
gas pipes.

 

 

Conditions: without the oven floor lid, without the cover and without the accessories
inside the oven. See Figure 27

Damage: no damage

 

 

Table 20 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-A - test 2

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks
6 Slight banging of accessories
17-30 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
oven door (more critical between 19-20
13 Hz)
Slight banging of the cabinet
Conditions: with cover and oven floor lids. With accessories inside the oven. Note: The
plastic layer of the cabinet peals ofl‘ with the yellow tape
, Damage: no damage

 

Table 21 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-B- test 1

 

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

18-28 Resonant vibration of the cabinet and
the oven door

35-40 Noisy. No critical.

 

 

Conditions: without the oven floor lid, without the cover and without accessories inside
the oven

. Damage: no damage

 

 

 

 

 

.\\‘\\\\ . .

* WAN'JVI.‘ >,

 

 

 

 

Figure 27 - Sample 42001-A without cover and accessories (Test 1)

41

Table 22 - Vibration test results for sample 42001-B- test 2

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

9 Slight banging noise fi'om accessories
inside the oven

10-20 Banging noise from accessories inside
the oven

' 12-27 Resonant vibration of a cabinet (most

critical at 20 Hz)

30 Resonant vibration of gas pipes, Noise

from cover

 

 

Damage: no damage

Conditions: with the cover and oven floor lids. With the accessories inside the oven

Table 23 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 -test 1

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

9 Resonant vibration of the oven
17-24 Resonant vibration of the cabinet
25-34 Very noisy. Oven floor lid banging.
81 Resonant vibration of gas pipes.

 

 

Damage: no damage

Conditions: without back-guard, oven rack, burners. Vlfrth oven floor lid. See Figure 28

 

Table 24 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 - test 2

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

6 Noise from top. No resonance.

10-11 Noise fiom the oven. No resonance.

20-24 Resonant vibration of the cabinet (most
critical fiequencies)

25-35 Critical noise coming fl'om cabinet and
oven

33-35 Product moved over the vibration table

80 Resonant vibration of gas pipes.

 

 

Damage: no damage

Conditions: same as test 1 but without the oven floor lid.

 

 

 

 

42

 

Figure 28 - Sample EV201 on the vibration table

43

Table 25 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 - test 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks
10 Parts banging inside the oven. No
15 critical.

Oven door lid banging inside the oven.
20-24 Resonant vibration of the cabinet
41 Oven door lid bangiilg inside the oven
Conditions: accessories inside the oven, with the oven rack, and cover floor lid. See
Figure 29
Damage: no damage

 

Table 26 - Vibration test results for sample EV201 - test 4

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant fi'equencies (Hz) Remarks

3-15 Continuous banging from back-guard
and oven floor lid (slight)

17-30 Resonant vibration of the cabinet

20-30 Resonant vibration of the cabinet (most
critical frequencies)

15-30 Resonant vibration of the cabinet

Conditions: with corrugated base (double wall), with back-guard inside the oven, with

rack and oven floor lid, without burners and supports

Damage: no damage

 

 

Table 27 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 - test 1

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

23 -27 Resonant vibration of cover and glass
lid

44 Noise fiom top, probably from the

 

COVCI’

 

is twisted. See Figure 30

 

Damage: no damagg

Note: the oven floor lid does not fit well to the oven floor because it is bent. Also, the lid

Conditions: without the oven floor lid and rack. The glass lid is taped to the cabinet.
With burners and supports. See Figure 31

 

 

 

 

 

 

nauseaetswaa ,.,

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 29 - Sample EV201 with accessories inside the oven

45

 

 

 

Figure 30 - Oven floor of sample EM240 bent

I'mMWM N»

. 1,er m.w»m'v
xx. .

 

Figure 31 - Sample EM240 on the vibration table

47

Table 28 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 - test 2

 

 

 

 

 

vibration

Resonant fiequencies (Hz) Remarks

13-14 Range moving (no critical)

20-25 Resonant vibration of cabinet and cover
Resonant vibration of the glass lid

30

Conditions: same as test 1.

Damage: no damage

Note: during the tests I detected that the rear left comer of cover is not well attached to
the cabinet. There is a problem of the cover banging continuously to the cabinet during

 

Table 29 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 -test 3

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

14-22 Resonant vibration of the glass lid
33 Resonant vibration from inside
12-26 Resonant vibration of the glass lid

 

 

with duct tape
Damage: no damage

 

Conditions: with double wall corrugated base. See figure 32. With glass lid protection
(early design), without the oven floor lid. I attached the rear cover corner to the cabinet

Note: The tab of the protection glass lid was torn during the resonant vibration of the
glass lid. I will add a radius to the tab to prevent the tear

Table 30 - Vibration test results for sample EM240 - test 4

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks
13.8-22 Resonant vibration of the glass lid
20-13 Most critical resonant vibration of the

 

glass lid at these frequencies.

 

cabinet with duct tape.

 

Conditions: with corrugated base (double wall), with glass lid protection (early design)
and with a modified tab, without an oven floor lid. I attached the rear cover comer to the

 

, Damage: one of the screws of the glass lid went loose during the test

 

 

 

48

 

Figure 32 - Corrugated base

49

Table 31 - Vibration test results for sample EMC203 -test 1

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

4 Slight banging from inside the oven

12 Banging noise of the oven floor lid.

22-23 Resonant vibration of the cabinet
(critical)

25 Banging of the rear electric burner
cover

30-31 Resonant vibration of cover

36-47 Resonant vibration of electric burners.
Most critical from 20-30 (Resonant
vibration of the cabinet)

 

 

Note: I had to attach the back of the cover to the cabinet with duct tape because the clips
used for that loosen easily. See figure 33

Conditions: with the oven components, without gas burners and supports. With electric
burner. See Figure 34

Damage: no damage

 

 

Table 32 - Vibration test results for sample EMC203 - test 2

 

 

 

 

 

Resonant frequencies (Hz) Remarks

3-6.4 Continuous banging fiom inside the
oven (Slight)

11-18 Continuous banging fi'om inside the
oven (slight)

18-29 Resonant vibration of cabinet and cover

30-50 Noise fi'om top (probably plates
banging)

29-24 Resonant vibration of cover

24-16 Resonant vibration of cabinet and cover

Conditions: with corrugated base (double wall), oven components, with gas burners and

supports taped to cover. With electric burners taped to cover. See Figure 35

Damage: no damage

Note: the rear electric plate tends to vibrate at difl‘erent fiequencies hitting the cover

 

 

 

Figure 34 - Sample EMC203

51

.,.,.:.w- ~ 7W "

~va

 

Figure 35 - Sample EMC203 with corrugated base

52

Improvements

Comparing the performance during vibration of the new products versus the prototypes
tested previously, a big improvement was observed. Although there were still severe
resonant vibrations of the cabinets in all the ranges, none produced any significant damage.
It is important to mention that there is no data on the fi'equencies present during actual
distribution of these products. This is one reason that dwells were not conducted for more
than five minutes at individual resonant fiequencies as recommended in the standard. Also,
these products were to be used for further testing.

From these tests, the following recommendations were made:

1.- In all ranges, there was resonant vibration of the cabinet and oven. The ranges
with back-guards (1504L, 42001 and EV201) require a proper package to store this and
the other components inside the oven. This will prevent scratching of the oven walls and
damage to the back-guard as well. Also, it is necessary to improve the assembly between
the lid and the oven floor. The lid easily falls to the bottom of the range. The oven base in
the new ranges tends to bend in the center of the oven floor, where the sheet metal is
joined. On the other hand, the position of the rack over the oven floor may prevent the lid
fi'om moving from its original position.

2.- In the new ranges, the assembly between the cover and the rear part of the
cabinet is not very strong. In the EV201 and EMC203 models there were clips that easily
fall apart during vibration. In the EM240 model, the spring is not strong enough to
prevent the cover from moving.

3 .- For all ranges, it is necessary to have an additional fixture to ensure that the

oven door remains closed. This can be tape or a piece of corrugated board.

53

4.- For model EM240, it is necessary to have additional protection for the glass lid.

5.- In general, the use of a base (corrugated or polystyrene foam) did not
significantly help the efl'ect of vibration on the products. However, the bases prevent the
ranges from moving around on the vibration table, due to their higher coeficient of
fiiction.

6.- Cover parts such as electric plates, burners, etc. have to be attached so they

cannot move during vibration.

54

2.4.2 Compression

The compression strength of a packaged product is defined to be the force required to
compress the package to failure [8]. Some times the product itselfis the element that
supports the stacking weight. This is often desirable because if the product is strong
enough to support the stacking weight, then a costly box or comer posts are not needed.
Therefore, it is important to know if the product is capable of withstanding these forces.
The following tests were made according to ASTM Standard D642-90: Standard Test
Method for Determining Compressive Resistance of Shipping Containers, Components,
and Unit Loads [9].. The products tested are listed in Table 2. The purpose of this test is
to determine if the product can support the stacking load without packaging protection,
such as corner posts and a container. A Lansmont compression tester (model 152-3 OTTC)
was used (Figure 36). Tests were made with a concentrated load ofi‘ to the sides where it
is more likely that people will step on the product. A piece of wood was used for the
concentrated load. The loads applied to the products were based on a stack of 5.5 units.
These were pass/fail tests. Ranges with back-guards were tested without the back-guards
in place because the back-guards go inside the oven in a package. The loads applied for

each product are shown in Table 34.

55

 

 

 

Figure 36 - Lansmont Compression tester

56

Table 33 - Compression loads applied to each product

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range

 

 

 

 

 

Product Model Sample Weight Minimum Remarks
Code of required
product load (lbs)
(1138)

20" Gas 1504L 1504LA 93.7 422 Product was tested with

range honeycomb protection because
the back-guard support was
higher than the cover (did not
use the protection for the
concentrated load test). See
Figure 37

20" Gas 1504L 1504LB 93.7 422 Product was tested with

range honeycomb protection because
the back-guard support was
higher than the cover (we did
not use the protection for the
concentrated load test. See
Figure 37

20" Gas 42001 42001A 84.9 382 Product was tested with upper

range PS cushion because the back-
guard support was higher than
the cover (did not use the
protection for the concentrated
load test). See Figure 38

20" Gas 42001 42002B 84.9 382 Product was tested with upper

range PS cushion because the back-
guard support was higher than
the cover (did not use the
protection for the concentrated
load test. See Figure 38

20” Gas EV20 EV201 83.8 377

range 1

24" Gas EM24 EM240 106.9 481 Did not do the concentration

range 0 load test.

20" Dual EMC2 EMC20 75.4 339

Fuel 03 3

 

 

57

 

Figure 37 - Sample 1504L with honeycomb protector

58

 

 

Figure 38 - Sample 42001 with PS protector

59

The results of the compression tests are shown in the force versus deflection graphs (see
Figures 40-52) and also in Table 34. In Figure 39, the constant rate configuration for one

of the samples is shown.

60

CONSTANT RATE CONTROL CONFIGURATION

PreloedlorDetIeotlonAutoZero:
YIslsttsotIonPeroentsgs:
StopFores:

StopDelleetlon:

Test Velocity:

Auto Sample Nunbsr:

Auto Log on Test Completion:
Overlay Auto Copy Test Interval:
Auto Prlnt Test Interval:

Current Status,

 

 

50.0 Lbs
20.0 $
377.0 Lbs
8.00 In

0.50 Ill/M

on
orr
oer

svsav 1

 

Figure 39 - Example of constant rate control configuration

 

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sumo sung-lee Footnote. outlet: Tbsp sum The one
“.mwuLWA 1 more. we serumI «rattan remade-rose
500
450 r
400
350
300
Force
Lbs 250
2C!)
150
100
50
0 l l J__l r_ 1 l l 1—
Defiestlss 0050mm
Figure 40 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-A
Maple!) tangled PselrForee Del!“ Tuep W The one
“.mnmma-c 1 421m- oaolu sass-r «:59th 1335541240403

 

 

 

 

l l

es§§§§§§§§§

_.l_._1 h 1 1
m Qmwm

Figure 41 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-A with concentrated load

62

 

 

 

Oar-plan Insole. Peskloree 0&ng Temp 'LRH Tine Date
“.mrmms I 4311th can ”.04? 44.12% 13:20:13 1240-1008
500
450 -
400
350
sec
Force
L“ 260
200
150
100
50
o 1 1 .m—r—r— 1 l

 

 

 

 

l l
m 0.me

42 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-B

 

 

 

Seraph!!! samples Paar-ore. DengK Temp w Tine on.
“.mnsorums-c 1 man. 0.2m new «nasal-t 13:23-30 tare-ms

500

m»

400

350

300

it." also

200

150

IN

50

0

 

 

 

 

l l L l l l
Wpsrm

Figure 43 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 1504L-B with concentrated load

63

 

 

 

snug-n Sunnis. PeekPoree burglar Temp w The one
mmw.~“A 1 “ALB Wt! “33" 44.12% 134015512464“

500

450.

400_

$0

300

it.” zoo

200

150

100

50

0

 

 

 

 

l l E l o.fiwl l l 1

Figure 44 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-A

 

 

 

Sample!) lunplsl mm burger: m strut Tins Os.
m.m.mr.snseA-c r assets. arsrn «alarmr «new 1mm: rats-100s

500

45°C

400

350

300

11'.“ also

200

150

100

50

0

 

 

 

 

l l l l_ l 1 l I
We. amp-rm

Figure 45 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-A with concentrated load

64

 

 

 

Sample!) Sample. PselrFsres Dell”! Temp m The Date
MMWLWM 1 303.0Lbs 0.18m 00.“? 44.12% 13:50:“ 1248-1“
500
460 ~
400 _
350
300
Force
Lb. 250
200
150
100
50
o 1 l l l

 

 

 

 

| | | l 1
Madden comp-tam

Figure 46 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-B

 

 

 

temple!) Seraph. PeeIIFor'es Dell"! Temp turn Tine Os.
M.MW.WB 1 3&1th 022m 0833’! 44.12% 13:47:42 12-10-1008
500
450 -
400 -
350
300
Force
Lbs 250
200
150
100
50
o l l l l

 

 

 

 

.l.____l_ 1 1
Madden 0.060psrdvlslon

Figure 47 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample 42001-B with concentrated load

65

 

 

 

Catapult) Serums! Peeklores eager: Tbs. 15R" Tlme Date
m.m.m01 1 370.2th 0.11111 ”.41 'F 44.20% 12:12:40 1246-19“
500
m I—
400 _
350
300
FL? 250
200
150
100
50
0

 

 

 

 

l l l l l I
We“...

Figure 48 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EV201

 

 

 

Seraph!) Israels! PeskForee sugar reap w The Date
“memento“ 1 30271.0. 0.21... 81.02? 44.121th 14:00:52 rare-less
500
‘50 _.
400 .—
350
300
Force
Lbs 250
21!)
150
100
50
o l l l l

 

 

 

 

*L—El 1
M 0.me

Figure 49 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EV201 with concentrated load

66

 

 

 

Sample!!! Sample! mm 0.111»: rm 'MIH Tine out.
was. RANGE. EM240 1 «Issue 0.40111 00.71? 44.1511RH 12:53:“12-10-1000
500
450
400
350
300
FL? 250
200
150
100
50
0 I 1 .L__1 1 1

 

 

 

 

Li L l
Dellsoflon 0.050perdlvlslon

Figure - 50 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EM240

 

 

 

Sample I) Sample I Peek Force Def g PK Temp W The Deb
MADE. m. ENG 203 1 340.3 Lb 0.23 b 07.02 'F 44.12 *RH 14:07:10 1240-1“
500
450 _
400 t.
350
300
Pores
Lbs 250
200
150
100
50
0 l l L l

 

 

 

 

_L_l l l l
Deflection 0.050 perdlvlslon

Figure - 51 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EMC203

67

Sample I) Sunpls I Peels Pores surges reap '4th The Deb
use. m. M 203. Con Lad 1 343.7 Lbs 017 b 07.02 ‘P 44.12 W 14:13:43 1240-10“

 

 

es§§§§§§§§§

 

 

 

 

1 l l l_ l l 1 L
Wu: 0000de

Figure 52 - Force vs. deflection graph for sample EMC203 with concentrated load

68

Table 34 - Results of compression tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range

 

 

 

 

 

 

Product Model Concentrated Sample Peak Deflection Remarks
load Force (lbs) @ Peak
(inches)

20" Gas 1504L No A 427.0 0.24 No
range darLage
20" Gas 1504L Yes A 422.4 0.20 No
me damage
20" Gas 1504L No B 432.1 0.27 No
range ‘ damage
20" Gas 1504L Yes B 427.1 0.21 No
range damagg_
20" Gas 42001 No A 384.4 0.20 No
range damage
20" Gas ' 42001 Yes A 394.0 0.18 No
range damage
20" Gas 42001 No B 388.1 0.22 No
range damage
20" Gas . 42001 Yes B 385.0 0.18 No

me dame
20" Gas EV201 No 378.2 0.11 No
rage damage
20" Gas EV201 Yes 382.7 0.21 No
range damage
24" Gas EM240 No 482.8 0.4 No
range damagg
20" Dual EMC203 No 348.3 0.23 No

Fuel damage
Ranc-

20" Dual EMC203 Yes 343.7 0.27 No

Fuel damage

 

 

69

Improvements

The test results showed that the gas ranges were strong enough to withstand the
anticipated compression forces. Only in two graphs is there a fallofl‘ in the strength. In the
first case (see Figure 42), a Slight drop is noticed for 280 lbs at 0.18 in. This is not failure
of the product, but a slight buckling of the honeycomb protection used in sample 1504L-
B. In the second case for sample 42001-A with concentrated load, there are two Slight
drop-ofl‘s on the curve, possibly due to buckling fi'om the piece of wood because no
damaged was observed in the product. From these results, the product Should be able to
support the stacking load with a fair safety margin. However, some protection is needed to
make sure the enamel on the cover does not crack. Also, it is important to take into
consideration a corner post or a similar element designed to protect the comers fi'om

impacts, not to help support the stacking loads.

70

2.4.3 Shock

The following tests were made according to ASTM Standard D3332-93: Standard Test
Method for Mechanical-Shock Fragility of Products, Using Shock Machines. The
products tested are listed in Table 10. The test is intended to provide data on product
shock fiagility that can be used in choosing optimum-cushioning materials or packaging
components for shipping containers and for product redesign. It can also provide
information about the performance of the product at difl‘erent drop heights. For models
EV201, EM240 and EMC203, Test Method A (Critical velocity Shock Test) was used
because there was only one sample of each model. For models 42001 and 1504, both
methods (A and B) were applied. The results are based on the calibration table for the
MT S (model MT S 846 Shock Test System) shock machine (Figure 5). See tables 35 and

36. The results are shown in Tables 37 to 43.

71

Table 35 - Shock Machine Calibration Values: 2 ms Half-sine Programmers (Bare
Table)

55
72
83
91
97
107
114
121
10 128
11 135
12 141
13 147
14 153
15 159
16 164
17 169
18 174
19 179
20 184

 

Table 36 - Shock Machine Calibration Values: Gas Programmer (Bare Table)

80 50
100

200
300

400

500

600

700

 

72

Table 37 - Shock test results for sample 42001-A (Method A)

 

Drop # Machine AV g's Duration Damage
Drop (in/sec) (milliseconds)
Height (in)

 

1 2 55 160 2 No damage (see Figure
53)

 

2 3 1/8 73 221 2 Rear bottom cabinet
bent (see Figure 54)

 

3 4 1/8 84 266 2 Increase of rear bottom
cabinet deformation

 

4 5 1/ 16 91 307 2 Slight deformation of
cabinet at flont bottom.
Slight bend of guide
gins of oven floor

 

5 6 3/16 99 346 2 Deformation of steel
Sheet flom bottom.
Slight bending of
control panel support

 

 

6 7 1/16 107 372 2 Bottom door popped
out (see Figure 55)
Bottom flame was bent
at flont

Oven floor popped out
Control panel support
was bent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

~1§.>14....(£/<;

 

Figure 53 - Sample 42001-A over shock mac ' e

74

 

Figure 54 - Damaged comer of sample 42001 A

75

 

Figure 55 - Sample 42001-A alter last drop

76

Table 38 - Shock test results for sample 1504L-A (Method A)

 

Drop #

Machine
Drop
Height (in)

AV
(in/see)

3'8

Duration
(milliseconds)

Damage

 

2 1/8

57

166

N

No damage

 

N—

3 1/16

73

218

Lower oven door was
bent

Slight bending of
cabinet at the real
bottom

Deformation of back
panel at bottom, close
to the cabinet comer

 

4 1/16

84

263

Lower oven door
opened during shock
Increase of deformation
in rear panel

Increase of deformation
of cabinet corner

 

 

 

 

91

 

305

 

 

Glass went out of place
due to bending of the
glass 811mmrt

Right oven door hinge
was bent

Oven door cannot be
closed

Lower flame at flont
was bent

Cabinet sides deformed
at bottom

 

 

77

Table 39 - Shock test results for sample EV201 (Method A)

 

Drop #

Machine AV g’s Duration Damage
Drop (in/sec) (milliseconds)
Height (in)

 

2 55 160 No damage

N

 

Nt—I

3 72 215 2 Oven door went out of
place

No damage (see Figure
56)

 

4 83 260 2 Very slight bent of base
support

Oven door went out of
place (we taped it for
next drops)

 

5 91 305 2 Oven floor was
damaged

Paint of cover went ofi‘
slightly in some parts
(see Figure 57)

Hinge door was bent

 

6 97 340 2 Cabinet was damaged
due to the impact force
transmitted flom lower
flame

The circular supports of
the base were bent
Frame is damaged
Slight separation of
assembly on oven floor

 

 

 

7 107 370 2 Increase of separation
of the assembly on
oven floor

Severe cabinet damage

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

 

 

Figure 56 - Sample EV201 flee of damage

 

Figure 57 - Cover of sample EV201

Table 40 - Shock test results for sample EM240 (Method A)

79

 

Drop #

Machine
Drop

AV
(in/sec)

3'8

Duration
(milliseconds)

Damage

 

mm)
2

55

160

2

No damage

 

Nr—I

3

72

215

2

Base supports were

bent (see Figure 58

Slight bending in

bottom flame at front

Feeding gas tube

support was loose
ain

 

83

260

Cabinet was bent in
flont corner

The flame was bent in
the flont and rear

The oven door hinge
was bent. It makes a
scratchy noise when
open

Slight deformation of
cabinet sides

 

 

 

 

91

 

305

 

 

Cabinet damage severe
at bottom

Frame was bent at rear
Glass door and glass lid
are OK

 

 

 

   

Figure 58 - Deformation of range base in sample EM240

81

Table 41 - Shock test results for sample EMC203 (Method A)

 

Drop #

Machine
Drop
Height (in)

AV
(in/86°)

8'8

Duration

(milliseconds)

Damage

 

.—s

2

55

160

2

No damage

 

3 1/16

73

218

2

Oven door hinge
slightly bent

Note: there was an
assembly defect of the
base; the base supports
are not the only parts in
contact with the floor.
Also the cabinet sides
were in contact with
the floor

No damage

 

b)

83

26

N

No damage

 

M

91

305

N

Very slight bending of
the lower right cabinet
comer

 

97

340

Slight bending of
cabinet (not critical)

 

107

370

Bending of rear panel
comer (not critical)

 

114

400

Bending of cover;
plates of electric
burners did not fit well
Deformation of cabinet

 

91/16

121

432

N

Rear panel was bent

 

10 1/16

128

457

N

Oven door glass went
out of position

 

 

10

 

11 1/8

 

136

 

484

 

 

Increase of flame
deformation and cover

 

 

 

 

82

Table 42 - Shock test results for sample 42001-B (Method B)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drop # Machine AV Gas g's Damage
Drop (in/sec) Pressure
Height (in)

1 12 140 100 18 No damage

2 12 140 150 27 Slight bending of cabinet at
bottom rear (no critical)

3 12 140 200 36 Slight bending of cabinet at
bottom rear (no critical) (see
Figure 59)

4 12 140 250 45 Increase of cabinet
deformation
Bending of oven floor pin

5 12 140 300 54 Increase of cabinet
deformation

6 12 140 350 63 Increase of cabinet
deformation

7 12 140 400 72 Increase of cabinet

 

 

 

 

 

deformation

 

 

I fun—:-

 

83

 

Figure 59 - Lower corner of sample 42001-B

 

Table 43 - Shock test results for sample 1504L-B (Method B)

 

 

 

 

 

Drop # Machine AV Gas g’s Damage
Drop (in/sec) Pressure
Height (in)

1 12 140 100 18 Defamation of flont base
support
Rear panel bent at bottom
(see Figure 60)
Displacement of oven glass

- Bending of lower door hinge
2 12 140 150 27 Increase of same damages
3 12 140 200 36

 

 

 

 

 

Increase of same damages

 

 

 

 

85

   

Figure 60 - Rear view of sample 1504L

Improvements

There were two types of product used in the shock tests: samples 42001 and 1504L were
products directly off the production line, and samples EV201, EM240 and EMC203 were
prototypes of the new product line. One advantage in testing products ofl‘ the production
line was the opportunity to develop a Damage Boundary Curve (DBC) for these two
products [2]. A DBC is essentially a two dimensional index of flagility which takes both a—
the amplitude and duration of the shock into account [11]. The DBC’s for the products
flom the production line is usefill because it gives the critical acceleration (g's) of the

products, information necessary for the cushion design.

 

As in the first phase, these results determine if the products require cushioning or not.
From the earlier conclusions of the first results (phase 1), an expected AV of 102.2 in/sec
was obtained for a 6 inch drop design height. From the results shown in Tables 37 through
41, critical velocity changes less than 102.2 in/sec were observed for all products. Based
on these results, the expected velocity change in a 6 in drop will exceed the critical
velocity change of the products and, therefore, a cushion is needed.

The Damage Boundary Curves for the production line products are shown in Figures 61
and 62. The horizontal line of the graph (acceleration boundary) was determined with the
gas programmers of the shock machine following the ASTM procedure. Figures 61 and 62
Show the Damage Boundary Curves for the production products. For sample 42001, the
flagility was determined to be 18 G and for sample 1504-B it was less that 18 G.

Similarly to the results flom the first phase, information on the performance of each
product alter each impact was reported to the Mabe product designers to improve the

design of the product.

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘°° :
,aso 5 1I '
i 1
two : ..
.. t = -
g l! . DAMAGEREGION
c1200 3 :
Elam—g '-
2 .
gm 1
5° EZGc-3Sg's 157Vc-86 I
. LI, ........ 1....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8
8
8
3

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VELOCITY COME. INISEC

Figure 61 - Damage Boundary Curve for Sample 42001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m e
350 : I
Cl
1 I
E“ :
250 g 1 "
E . DAMAGEREGION
' I
1:200 I
g .:
u_150 g :
i s =
gloo .
so 3 201x36
. 1.57Vc-89
o ~l-0-ucuon ....?... Duo-l oooooooooooooo ICC-I...-
40 50 so 70 so so 100 110 120 130 140 150 150
verocrwcrtmoalwsec

Figure 62 - Damage Boundary Curve for Sample 1504L

2.5 Product improvement flom flagility tests results.

Any improvements to the design of the product or components of the product have to take
into consideration several factors, such as cost, functionality, appearance, etc. One of
these factors is the flagility of the component or product. Some of the changes made flom
the functionality and flagility results and also the marketing studies, are described in this
section. All of these changes are still in the development stage.

- In order to improve the appearance of the range, the lower flont support was eliminated
and this lower section will be part of the cabinet range. This will help to improve the
rigidity of the range and will help to decrease the flagility of the product.

- Instead of a lid for the oven floor, a completely removable floor will be used. This will
improve the appearance of the oven. However, further testing of this element is necessary
to see the efi'ect of vibration and impacts during transportation (see Figure 63)

- A new design of the supports of the glass for the oven door will improve the attachment
of the glass to the door (see Figure 64)

- The electric burners (cal-rod) will have a special element to fix on the burner. This
element will prevent repetitive shock during transportation of the burner against the
burners supports (see Figure 65)

- The knob controls will have a clip to prevent the knob flom popping out of place during

distribution (see Figure 66).

89

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 63 - New oven floor design

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EA

 

 

 

m. a”.

 

 

 

Figure 64 - New supports of the glass for the oven floor

   

Figure 65 - Electric burners clip

Chapter 3

PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS

In this chapter, some of the aspects that Mabe has to take into consideration when

designing a package for a new line of products will be covered. Many of these are general

._s.. -I a)! . -.~.___-

principles applicable to all products, but some are particular to Mabe’s concerns in order

 

to define the best alternative to package the products.

3.1 Cost Analysis

The goal is to design a package which will protect the product adequately at the lowest
cost possible. Under-packaging will cost the company money in product damage, and
over-packaging will cost the company money in throw-away packaging. There are also
other type of considerations to keep in mind. Packaging, as with any other part of the
product, represents a cost. The project manager at Mabe has a single cost goal for the
material, for the tools, and for molds for all parts. This information is important because it
will help to decide the best overall. Also, it is important to keep in mind the cost of the
actual product and to know its flagility. Ifwe can reduce the cost (or at least maintain the
same cost) and reduce the damage level at the same time, then we will have a better
packaging system than before. Table 44 shows an example of the packaging cost

breakdown of one of the current models.

91

92

Table 44 - Packaging costs for a 20 inch range (current model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Description Cost (US dollars)
1 20 in corrugated board box 31.884
2 PE 20 in PE bag 80.117
3 Upper protector (20 in x 7 in x l '/4 in) 30.240
4 Upper protector (20 in x 4 in x 1 ‘/4 in) 30.121
5 2 in tape 30.010
6 Yellow tape 80.039
7 Fiber tape 30.067
8 Glue 30.029
9 Staples $0.01 1
10 Handle protector 30.060
11 20 in back protector $0.075
12 Cover Side protector $0.102
Total 32.754

 

 

 

 

 

Similar to the example shown in Table 44 there are costs for every model which vary
depending on the size of the product and the type of package (currently there are two
types: one for domestic products and another type for export products). For this new line
of products, Mabe has decided to have only one type of package. Having only one type
will have some advantages:

-Volumes for all packaging will increase and this should lower the price of the materials.
-Dealing with just one type of package will help the production line to work in a more
eficient way.

Having one type of package will help, but depending on the type and size of the product,
the costs will have some variations. Based on the cost goal for the package system and
current model practice, the project manager makes an estimate of the package cost for
each new model. From these figures he calculates a weighted cost where he takes into

consideration the volumes of the new products. These volumes are based on forecasts of

93

the production for the new line of products. In this study I cannot include the weighted
cost because this information is confidential. However, flom this protocol, we anticipate a
target packaging cost of $2.918 USD, which represents a 5.62% of the total cost of the
product. This objective cost is an average cost over all models. Obviously, there will be
products with a packaging cost higher than the $2.918 USD and others will have a lower
cost.

Finally, the product improvement flom the flagility studies will help us to reach this goal
because if the new product line is less flagile than the current product line, then we can
design a better package for these ranges.

3 .2 Maximum packaging sizes.

Package size is related to the package cost: the bigger the package, the more costly. Also
if package size is increased, utilization of warehouse space and containers for
transportation will be affected.

For a line of products like this new line of ranges, with a lot of difl'erent models (70
models approximately), it is very cost effective to make a detailed analysis and try to select
the best options to decide on the least amount of different sizes needed for the entire line.

Table 45 shows a brief analysis of the product size.

 

94

Table 45 - Product sizes according to the product line characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free-standing Built-in
Flat with Flat with- Up-swept Flat with glass lid Flat with-out
glass lid out glass glass lid
lid
Height(in)" A A B B C C D D E E
Depth (in) 26.4 23.7 26.4 23.7 26.4 23.7 26.4 23.7 26.4 23.7
Widths (in) 20 20 20 20 20 20 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2
21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
24 24 24 24 24 24
25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2

 

 

I"Height dimensions are not yet defined

From the table, there are 5 different heights. We can use dimension C for all flee standing

models, since it is the highest dimension. For the built-in models, we can use dimension E.

This will allow us to have just two sizes of comerposts or boxes, depending on the type of

package. For the product depth we have two difl‘erent sizes: 26.4 inches and 23 .7 inches.

Since there is a difl‘erence of 2.7 inches, it is convenient to have two different depths. For

the widths, there are four different dimensions for the flee-standing models because some

models will have two end caps on the side of the control panel. We can use the dimensions

of 21.2 inches and 25.2 inches in a similar way as we did for the heights.

From this study, we have a total of 8 different sizes, which is good considering the total

number of difl‘erent models.

 

 

95

3.3 The distribution environment.

Defining the environment is a very important part of the package development process.
Only by knowing the environmental conditions that the product will encounter can the
process of developing and evaluating effective protective packaging to enable the product
to survive the distribution environments begin [12]. Distribution of these products changes
according to the different places where the ranges will be sold. For instance, some I!‘
products will be shipped flom Mexico City to other cities within Mexico, other products
will be shipped to Central America, other products will go to South America, etc. Mabe

currently has undertaken a project to develop a performance specification based on

 

E? . .

recorded environmental data for these areas. This plan will cover the most critical routes
for each difl‘erent kind of product (range, washing machine, and refligerator). In Figure 66
we include a Gantt chart for this plan. Since this plan will take some time to develop Mabe
will use the General Electric Appliance Test Procedure (5 12-B125 Product Capability-
Shipping) as a reference. Even though this test is not based on the specific distribution
environment of Latin America, it is currently used in Mabe to test their products. The next

part of this section is a flagrnent of part A of the procedure of the GEA test procedure.

A MINIMUM PERFORMANCE SPEC. TESTS:

 

Below is a listing of the Minimum Performance Specification (MPS) tests that must be
passed by all GEA products. Shown are both the ESOL series test nomenclature and the
number of units recommended for each test. In addition, there are other tests
recommended for refiigerator products that follow this listing and are specific to
refiigerators and fleezers. Products should be subjected to these tests during the early
development phases to define vulnerability to different conditions that may be experienced
in the shipping environment, and the degree of margin to damage under these conditions.
Product sold to SEARS must receive additional testing as identified under SPECIAL
TESTS - SEARS.

WIN

Emudlwsreandhsrdwsrs)
Sever(sollwsreandherdwsrs)
Osllnltlonslerltleelrouhe
mamm
Routel-‘Istsample
Rolns2-1stesmpleousshers)
RoubS-lstsamplflrsnges)
Rant-Mempblrefiw
Roras2-2ndssmplsosssners)
Rooms-Mantelsm'w)
envy-ls
Rordst-tstsemplemlw
Route tatssrnpleousehers)
3-ldmvblw)
Roub1-2ndsempleoflw
Route2-2ndeample(wsshers)
RouteS-2ndsempls(ran9ss)
newdstavsaetusltests

Iodlryorelabomnewspeelnedes

.Cfl...“~‘

assume...
been-0°

 

Figure 66 - Gantt chart of a project to record environmental distribution events

 

Table 46 - List of Minimum Performance Specification tests

 

 

 

 

 

TEST QTY
E50Ll REPETITIVE SHOCK- (shake table) 3
E50L2 SWEPT VIBRATION & RESONANCE 1*
E50L3 STACKED REPETITIVE SHOCK (top-laydown) 5"
E50L4 INCLINED IMPACT (conbur) 3

 

ESOLS INCLINED IMPACT W/HAZARD

 

E5 0L6 BASILOID HANDLING

 

E5 0L7 SQUEEZE CLAMP HANDLING

 

E5 0L8 FREE-FALL DROP (edge or corner drop)

. f

 

E5 0L9 SHOCK/FRAGILITY

 

ESOLIO DYNAMIC COMPRESSION

 

 

 

 

 

wwNw—IO‘N

E50L13 SHIP TEST FOR KITS & ACCESSORIES

 

 

"' Combine E50L2 & E50L9 for a total of 2 units. Should plan for 2 units ;
to conduct S/F due to fact that damage may be encountered on first unit.

** Normal test to utilize 5 units in each orientation to be shipped. If sample Size is
restricted or there is a concern regarding ‘wear & abrasion', then 3 units may be tested in
each orientation as a minimum, with the test modified to run the normal l-hour vibration
followed by the 15-minute resonant dwell. The product is unpacked and inspected the
same a normal procedure. It is then repackaged and tested for another hour, inspected,
repackaged, and tested for the third hour and inspected [6]

Finally, there are some considerations that apply specifically to the Mabe products:
1. The stack height for Mabe products is five and a halfunits: five products stacked in a
column and one product between two columns.

2. The most critical temperature and humidity conditions are shown in Table 47

Table 47 - Most critical conditions of temperature and humidity in Mexico

 

 

 

 

warehouses
Warehouse (City) Temperature (°F) Averege relative humidity
Merida, Yuc 82.4in winter 80%
95 in summer
Cd. Juarez, Chih. 104 to 116 in summer 5 to 10 % in summer
32 to 50 in winter 25 to 30 % in winter

 

 

 

 

98

3. The maximum time a product is stored in a warehouse is seven months.
4. Sometimes there are wet floors in the warehouses.
5. On average, the product is handled 5 or 6 times during the distribution cycle. It can be

handled with handling trucks with basiloid or squeeze clamp trucks.

3 .4 Analysis of different alternatives.

The most common package for appliances is a corrugated board box with protectors.
However according to a packaging engineer at Signode Packaging Systems, the
“appliance OEM profitability is greatly afl‘ected by the rising cost of corrugated fiberboard
components, such as containers, fillers, pads, multi-wall formed corner protectors, and
cushioning. To reduce costs, many OEMs are looking for ways to eliminate or decrease
the amount of corrugated materials used in their packaging”[l3]. In Mabe there are
several product lines that are changing flom the corrugated fiberboard box to other
systems to improve packaging performance and reduce costs. Some alternatives that Mabe

has for packaging its product line are:

1. Corrugated fiberboard box with packaging protectors. This is the current system for the
current ranges (see Table 44 and Figure 67). Domestic products use honeycomb
protectors and export products use polystyrene protectors. The advantages are low cost
and ease of assembly in the production line. The domestic package has the smallest size.
The disadvantages are that quality materials are not always good and, damage level is
some times high. If there is a damage during distribution, it is almost impossible to detect.

The honeycomb package does not have any cushion at the bottom.

   

Figure 67 - Corrugated fibre box package

 

100

2. A see-through package with PS protectors, corrugated fiberboard caps, comerposts and
steel banding. A PE bag protects the range flom dust and humidity. The advantages are
adequate protection of the product; some damage can be detected during distribution; cost
can be competitive depending on the design. The disadvantages are that the PE bag does
not have a good appearance and can be ruptured easily.

3. A see-through package with PS protectors, corrugated fiberboard caps, steel banding
comerposts, and shrink wrapped with PE film. The advantages are a good design can
adequately protect the product; damages can be detected during the distribution; can be
handled with truck with basiloid and squeeze clamp trucks. The disadvantages are that it
requires investment in special machinery for the shrink wrap process. A competitive cost is
hard to achieve.

4. A see-through package with PS protectors, corrugated fiberboard caps, comerposts and
shrink wrapped, without steel banding. The corrugated fiber caps go inside the shrinked
bag. The advantages are a good design can adequately protect the product. Some damage
can be detected during distribution. Cost can be competitive depending on the design.

The disadvantages are that it cannot be handled with truck with basiloid. It requires
investment in special machinery for the shrink wrap process

5. A see-through package with PS protectors, PS comerposts and shrink wrapped,
without steel banding (see Figure 68). The advantages are a good design can adequately
protect the product. Some damage can be detected during distribution; very good
appearance. The disadvantages are that it cannot be handled with a truck with basiloid; it
requires investment in special machinery for the shrink wrap process and investment in

several molds. A competitive cost is hard to achieve.

101

 

Figure 68 - PS package

102

3.5 Proposal using see through packaging

From the list of alternatives, see that a see-through package can be used in difl‘erent ways
and still ofl‘er good advantages. The use of “invisible” packaging will reduce concealed
damage by increasing the awareness and inspection ability of the leader, fleight carrier and
customer [14]. Perlick in his article “A Change to See-Through Packaging” wrote, “when
was the last time you saw a refiigerator being shipped-not by reading the identifying print
on the carton but seeing the actual refrigerator? More shippers are implementing see-
through packaging for their products, and the distribution environment is accepting them”.
Mabe is a company that is experiencing this change. So far, a product line of washer
machines is packaged with see-through package with very good results. The refligeration
line is in the process of this change. From this experience, the implementation for the new
product line of ranges of this type of package system looks convenient. As the
consumption of EPS (expanded polystyrene) tends to increase, better prices can be
obtained flom the suppliers. This also applies for other parts such as comerposts. One
concern about using EPS are environmental aspects. “In the past , EPS molded-foam
packaging has received criticism due to assumptions that it is filling up landfills. In truth,
however, EPS is 95 percent air and only 5 percent polystyrene, and therefore produces
less solid waste, and represents less than 1 percent of the volume and weight of the
municipal solid waste . In fact, the National Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling Study by R.
W. Beck found consumers who packaged with EPS are recycling more than ever, with
23.3 million lb of EPS packaging recycled in 1993, which is 2.2 million lb more than what

was recycled in 1992 [13].

103

Whatever the type of see-through package system used, the need for a cushion to protect
the product flom shocks is evident flom the shock test results. The next section covers the

cushion design of the range base.

3.6 Cushion design

The key to selecting the most economical cushion protection is the use of published

“"31

cushion curves. Two types of data are needed and must be used simultaneously: shock
cushion curves and vibration transmissibility data [2]. This section will focus on cushion

curves because there is no information available on vibration transmissibility data

 

(Vibration natural flequency vs. static stress curve). Curves like this are neither commonly
available nor always reliable. In most cases, you must conduct your own tests and develop
your own cushion vibration data. By mounting cushion material on a shaker, weighing it to
various static stress levels, and monitoring both table and weight accelerations, a curve
may be generated during a frequency sweep [2].

To determine a standard cushion for all products, Mabe decided to design the cushion for
the most flagile range, in this case for sample EM240. In section 2.4.3, it was determined
that a cushion was needed for all products. The problem is that for the new products, there
was just one sample of each model. The results show that the products flom the current
production line are more flagile. Sample 42001 has a flagility of 18 G. Even though this
number seems small for the new products, we can use it to be sure that the products will
be protected. Tests of prototypes in phase three will give us the information necessary to

adjust the cushion design.

104

Mabe decided to design a cushion using EPS with a density of 1.25 PCF. The only
dynamic cushion performance curves available were for DYILITE® D19SB. These ‘curves
do not cover a 6 inch drop and also there are no curves available for all thicknesses. For
this reason, a “dynamic stress vs. energy density curve” (stress vs. energy curve) for this
material [7].was generated The stress vs. energy curve is a single curve which replaces all
of the published cushion curves for the material. It can be used to reproduce the published
cushion curves as well as to generate cushion curves for any other drop height and
thickness. Hence, it embodies much more than the published information. Energy density
is a measure of the severity of the drop and dynamic stress is a measure of the way the
material reacts to this.

Using the DYILITE® D195B 12” drop (h), lst impact I selected difl‘erent choices of 3
(static stress) and t (cushion thickness) to generate the energy density (sh/t) and dynamic

stress (Gs) data (see Table 48).

 

105

Table 48 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for DYILITE® D195B 12”

s (psi) h (in) t (in) Energy Density sh/t Peak 6 Dynamic Stress
Gs

0.
1
0.

   

106

From this data I generated three tables for three difl‘erent cushion thicknesses (0.7 5, 1.00
and 1.25 in) and a drop height of 6 inches (see Tables 49 to 51). The final result is
presented in a graph as a cushion curve (see Figure 69).

For the ranges, a static stress of 1.2 psi was established according to the following
equation:

Product weight
CushionArea

 

Static Stress = [3]

The design will use two PS bases. Each base will have a contact area of 18.15 in x 2.5 in =
45.375 sq in x 2 = 90.75 sq in. The weight of sample EM240 is approximately 110 lb.
Therefore the static stress will be 110 lb / 90.75 sq in = 1.2 psi. In the graph we see that
the curve for the 1.25 in thickness almost intercepts with 20 6'8 at 1.25 psi. Since the
flagility of the product should be bigger than 18 G's and considering that this is the most
fragile product, I will select this thickness for the bases. In Figure 70 shows a proposed

base design. This base will have two versions for the two depths determined in section 3 .2.

107

Table 49 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 1.25 in Cushion

Height Energy density (psi) G Cushion area

N

20. . 340.
22. . 170.
22. . 113.
24. . 85.
25. . 68.
27. . 68.
27. . 68.
27. . 56.
30. .

32. 42.
37. . 34.
38. . 34.
43. . 28.

N

1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
6.
6.
7.
8.
9.

9999999999999
9999999999999

 

Table 50 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 1.00 in Cushion

Height Energy density Ipsil G Cushion area

N

21. . 340.
25. . 170.
24. . 113.
27. . 85.
27. . 85.
25. . 85.
28. . 68.
31. . 56.
34. 48.5
37. . 42.
38. . 42.
45. . 34.
51. . 28.
49. . 28.

N

99999999999999
dddddddddddddd

0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.

 

 

108

Table 51 - Energy Density and Dynamic Stress Data for a 0.75 in Cushion

 

Height Energy density (psi) G Cushion area
0. 6. 0. 22. . 340.
0. 6. 0. 25. . 170.
0. 6. 0. 27. . 1 13.
0. 6. 0. 27. . I 13.
0. 6. 0. 25. . 1 13.
1. 6. 0. 30. . 85.
1 6. 0. 33. . 68. r
1. 6. 0. 38. . 56. ij
1. 6. 0. 37. . 56.
I. 6. 0. 42. .
2. 6. 0. 44. . 42.
2. 6. 0. 50. . 34. ,
3. 6. 0. 57. . 28.
3. 6. 0. 66. . 28. .
In

 

Dscoloration (3's
8 .8 .8

109

Dynamic Cushion Performance 0' Drop Isl Inpaci EPS for Densily
=126PCF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .3.
"""Imnm‘

 

- - - I-UJS

"" " 1-10

 

1-125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.50
sure Stress (p11)

Figure 69 - Dynamic cushion for a 6 in drop

1.75 2.00 2.50

3.00

I '_ s‘hln'dl

 

1“

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a “— mm
none—-—- A
:51. 1 Mme/”4r- ... _
up. 1' v ensem- 12"“
.e :65: "as?"
if: 1“ ,........
N nurses I“-
-E (F . J..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.
t
Iii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW

(D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 70 - PS base design

 

 

 

111

3.7 Packaging description

At this point, it is a little difficult to describe the package design in detail, because Mabe

has not yet defined which will be the best option. Several factors are involved in selecting

the best option, and one of those factors is the product design, which is still in

development. However, the see-through packaging options have some similarities. Figure

71 shows a proposed see-through package with its components. A package like this E

consists of two PS bases ( see Figure 70), two upper PS protectors, four corner posts

 

(there are several material options and designs for these comer posts), two corrugated
fiberboard caps, a PE bag which can be heat-shrunk, steel banding, and protectors for the E
oven door. Also we have to design an adequate system for the flee-standing ranges to

attach the back-guard adequately inside the oven. The cost of a package like this is

approximately $4.00 USD. This is about $1.10 USD more than the cost objective. This is

an indication that firture work needs to be done to achieve the objective cost with this type

of packaging.

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 71 - See-through package

Chapter 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mabe is a leading Mexican company in the home appliance industry. This company has
facilities in several cities in Mexico and Latin America. For this reason, it is very important
for Mabe to have a package design that protects its the products cheaply and conveniently
in the different distribution environments.

A methodology for packaging design has been proposed where knowledge of the
product’s fragility and the distribution environment are two basic requirements to achieve
an effective product/package system at the optimum cost. To develop this methodology in
Mabe, a package design for a new product line of ranges was started. Prototypes fi'om
two generations were tested in two testing/design phases. In the first phase, vibration and
shock tests were performed. From the results of these tests, some recommendations were
given to the product design department, which changed the product to make it less fi'agile.
In the second phase, vibration, compression and shock tests were performed on both the
improved product fi'om phase one and on production line samples of existing models. The
recommendations given to the design team for improving the prototypes fi'om phase one
did in fact strengthen the product, which will ultimately lead to lower packaging costs. At
this point then, it is possible to say that the proposed methodology for incorporating the

product testing and packaging functions into the design process for the product does in

113

 

114

fact work. Data fiom these tests on production line samples gave Mabe information to
further improve that product. The results obtained will improve these products and also
help to define the optimum design of difl'erent package components.

A see-through type of packaging was proposed due to the advantages that this system has
over the traditional corrugated fiberboard package.

This study did not cover the complete design of the product line because this line is still in
a design development stage. However, the work done up to this point has been usefirl to
the project team as they are more aware of the importance of looking at the product as a
product/package system. It was also proved that the proposed methodology gives several
benefits to the Mabe design process. It helps to improve the quality of the product and
ofi‘ers an adequate package for the product at minimum cost.

Some future work that will be done to conclude this project is:

- Further testing of improved prototypes will help Mabe define the best options for
cushioning and protectors for the difi‘erent critical parts of the ranges.

- More detailed analysis of options for the packaging components will be evaluated in
order to achieve the optimum packaging system.

- Identification of new suppliers and negotiations with current suppliers of the different
packaging components will help Mabe to bring down packaging costs.

- Personnel fi'om industrial engineering will be involved in this process to insure the
feasibility of the package in the production line.

- Testing of the product/package system will be performed to ensure that the system will

not have problems in the distribution environment. These tests will take place in a

 

 

rams. t»

 

115

packaging lab which is now in development in the Mabe Technology and Development
Center.
- It is to early to tell how well the proposed methodology works from start to finish

because data on the distribution environment is not yet available.

 

APPENDIX A

57 a

 

APPENDIX A

LIST OF CODES FOR TABLE 2

TYPES
A- Built-In Gas Range
B- Built In Gas and Electric Range
C- Free Standing Gas Range (European Style)
D- Free Standing Gas and Electric Range (European Style)
E- Free Standing Gas Range (American Style)
F - Free Standing Gas and Electric Range (American Style)
SPECIAL DIFFERENCES
1. TOP BURNERS
1.1 Electric

CRI-. Coil Heating Element (Cal Rod)
PE— Plate Heating Element (Hot Plate)

1.2 Gas

QTS- Die Press Steel Body (3 in Diameter)

QAS- Die Casting Aluminum Body (3 in Diameter)
SQA- Die Casting Aluminum Body (4 in Diameter)

2. OVEN BURNERS

2.1 Electric
CR2- Coil Heating Element

2.2 Gas
QTT- Cold Rolled Steel Tubing

116

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

.I'J- !. -r r r'

LIST OF REFERENCES

l. Maezawa, Eiichi. “Product Modification to Reduce Distribution Costs.” Digributign

W. Hemdon, Virginia: Institute of Packaging Professionals, r“
1995.

2. MTS Systems Corporation. “S-Step Package Development.” Distribution Pagkagm’ g
My. Hemdon, Virginia: Institute of Packaging Professionals. 1995.

3. Johnson, Christopher. “In-House Testing of Computer Packaging” Distribution
Packaging Tfihnology. Hemdon, Vrrginia: Institute of Packaging Professionals.
1995.

f .

 

4. ASTM D 3580-90. “Standard Test Method of Vibration (Vertical Sinusoidal Motion)
Test of Products.” W- 4th ed- 1994

5. ASTM D 3332-93. “Standard Test Method for Mechanical-Shock Fragility of Products,
Using Shock Machines.” Selected ASTM Standards on Packagrn' g. 4th ed. 1994.

6. GE Appliances. “5 12-8125 Product Capability - Shipping.” Engmge’ ring Test
W. Rev. 1. 1990.

7. Burgess, Gary. Class Lecture Notes. Packaging 805, Advanced Packaging Dynamics.
School of Packaging. Michigan State University. Spring 1996.

8. Burgess, Gary. Class Lecture Notes. Packaging 310, Technical Principles & Dynamics
for Packaging. School of Packaging. Michigan State University. Fall 1995.

9. ASTM D 642-90. “Standard Test Method for Determining Compressive of Shipping
Containers, Components and Unit Loads.” Selected ASTM Standards on

m. 4th ed. 1994.

10. ASTM D 4169-93. “Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping
Containers and Systems.” Selected ASTM Smdards on Packaging. 4th ed. 1994.

11. Brandenburg, Richard K., and Julian Lee. W. 2nd
ed. 1985

117

 

118

12. Fiedler, Robert M., “Distribution Hazards and Environmental Conditions”.

Di ' i n P ' T hn l .Hemdon, Virginia: Institute of Packaging
Professionals. 1995.

13. Le Blane, Jenny, “Packaging: The Last Step to Success” Appliance. March 1996. Vol.
53. No. 3.

14. Perlick, Nick J ., “A Change to See-Through packaging” Distribution Pack '
Tghnglogy. Hemdon, Virginia: Institute of Packaging Professionals. 1995.

 

nrcuran STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1111111111 ”I111||1|1||N11|11|W|| 1111111
31293015706371