«nu—u-

      
 
  

   

._‘—r‘
.r
..

”dd“ - < -
- fl! =4_-..-
H" _,
_ — ."—- _
'—- _ A .- _ _

  

' —.—
5 v -, _
. '¢..'; ESE" ‘ 2 ,o . _ .
‘ ,-—’ _ —
. "‘ -.-—’4 0.. "_ _ ‘ -
‘ — '4‘ - 4— - 4

‘u” ‘9.-
W

1 W
fun-«’5.

 

     
  
 

    
    
  

   

 
    
    
    
   

      
     
 

 
    

:~

2. 2 .. ' .5 5
...r 5'5 . 5.5 '

J 5. TH
E 5' 55' 5.. T -. "T. "Z'-""'5"5.. 5." rT‘ ‘51? T
5 555 ..QFTmfifiuvh5NTT '5Tu.fi“'T5 \ 155555‘ 555
T 5;. fi35555555n T . . 5' eel?.. .'§.:
5 55:53.5. 5.55.5.5:3513.55.55;..-5.5.152.5'TTTT'5 ."5 5“". 5' 55555 ., 1".5355 ., .' H. m”? ‘25.. .5. 5‘5 13:52:55.5." '25.. '55:."
g "555‘5TT'5T'5' 'T.""' 5'. 5'5 'T""' ""5T"'T' 5.5"“ "'TT-Tu'f";"'»T.'.""""". "» ' " 'T't'T'T 'T-Tw'IT'TTT'." '5'" 'T" '5'». 5513
I: 5‘.'5.‘.‘:T'.TT""1'55‘25“.“5'5.5". ...THT. ., , .5'..'15T'T"5:":‘-.’;T.". 5.555......31‘51'2'55'..TT TT 'l'fiT‘"='.TT.‘.5~‘TT'> 5-5531
£5 é555555.555'55.‘5"5'13555TT""T'5".5'5'5"TTT'5TT5'5'5'. 5 1:55.5'595555".'1":";'I5555-5 ‘1'!" 2 -'v .Iln 555.5 ' 5 5""'55'T.;§T..'5'."T.'T.':552.555. 55:15. 155*.‘3m5315 551:5" “I; “155 25:15
~i.55555m?555'T. n 5. '“53”5 W'T ~fl5 5'.. .'z' “wi'u55T55'5. '5‘” ' .55 T55
5.55..5.5.5....55.5.»...... .555." "T '5‘ ‘5‘ 5'5 55.5".5 ‘TT 5‘5 'T TTTT 5‘5” .. T" T 55"5'55'5.‘ '0'" ‘ 555.55... 5-5 .5555
.I '5'.."~TT‘.T.{ "T551515 " 5 r". 5'5 53'." l ‘T 5.5" .3555», ' “‘5' 5 .515... 5755.1: T-I'5"T' .1574 5025' 5 ' 'T 'T 3""
3 .-'~..5:.~.’.. '5 » 'l ' '..-.5.. : 55:2. "a 5: .T.5.5~,5T ,T 1". TT T'h 5-T.5'.Hl.'-'.'-.'5 55' 'T '
5"" 555555T'T'"5"‘55'TT"‘"T"TT' '5' 55"T'."'5".5"3"-T"" 'Y"T"'"T.T '5'T'""5'5""' '5'1'T'T'5TIT".T-~"'"'T '5" 555'" 54535555555 5555555555" 555555‘55555'5'TT55'555T15‘5'“ 551}; 551.5555 '5'"
'T 5". T'T' TT T'T5’TT‘TT5' W ”'5‘ T '15" 51:15:"... 5.55.55... .5" '5' :55 'T. T' 55555 . 5"~
"' 'M ”-5.5 5'" ...-... .T'5'T'5'T-T"T""‘~'T5:T=" T'TI.5~"T”"T 5.. T . “55.5.... ' '5 T." 5' 52555555555 ’5'.
T" T""'T " "T u'T' "' "~'T'| TTT "T!" " Tl ' 'T ' 5n I 5. .-" In .‘ TI.
'5' - '. » 5555551“.T555555 T T' T" '5" T' 4555:5555” " 55'” ""‘.'T ..'..'T.TT' '5' 5’ T": 1.5; 5'5 . -
"|' '59‘

_-

T"

T 5155.15 '55 ' 51,55
"5." ..» 55' '555. "T5 """3' 5555515 5
5555!.‘5'T (“55" T5|55l'|'5555'55"|5"5'T"HTT55'5155555555

" T55 l. .' TI 5 55555
5.5555." 5"...555555.“ 5555*"
'

5 '5 5 :55 55:15“ I'T'5 ‘
TT.'1'»..“rT-T"'T5'>‘5555 ‘5'".‘.'..'....'5"5'”55'525' '5 "'5'"
.555 " 5'5555 ' ' 5
. "5555555525 5555555555 '55. 55515555 ..'IT .5‘5 ..m

Illjlllllllflljlllfllfllllllfllllflfllflllll

THESlS

men State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
ACCUMULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A BOTTLING OPERATION
presented by
Kimberly J. Caravan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. So degreein Packgirg

Mood E. 019W

a Major professor

‘ Dr. Hugh Lockhart
Datew $5 1

 

Ai3“: 3 dlav‘

1

 

MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: _
place in book drop to

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from

‘—_. your record. FINES will

 

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

Mi“; 93’ 1999
g litigate»

‘thb ,- -

 

 

 

 

ACCUMULATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR A BOTTLING OPERATION

by
Kimberly Jae Carswell

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF PACKAGING

1982

ABSTRACT .

ACCUMULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A BOTTLING LINE

by
Kimberly Jae Carswell

Productivity has recently received increased
attention in the packaging industry. The use of accumula-
tion, once considered a necessary evil is now being
considered as a way to increase productivity. This thesis
proposes the use of accumulators as a way to increase
packaging line productivity by decreasing the labor require-
ment of a packaging line, while maintaining the same level
of production.

Time studies, statistical analysis, and plant space
considerations were employed to determine the optimal size of
accumulator for a bottling line. It was determined that
installation of an accumulator would make it possible to
eliminate one position from the line crew. This labor saving
justified the cost of the accumulator. The incorporation of
an accumulator in the line will reduce the labor requirement

of the line thus increasing packaging line productivity.

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Mr. and Mrs.
James R. Carswell. Without their continual support
and effective encouragement, this thesis would not

have been possible.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express her appreciation
and gratitude to the following individuals:

Dr. Hugh Lockhart, School of Packaging, for his advice
and guidance as major professor.

Dr. James Goff, School of Packaging, for serving as a
committee member.

Mr. Richard Gonzalez, Graduate School of Business
Administration, for serving as a committee member.

Mr. Frank A. Paine, Consultant in Packaging Technology
and Management, for his sincere interest, practical advice,
and for serving as an honorary committee member.

Mr. W. H. Marshall, President, and Mr. Robert Harkness,
Plant Manager, of Nehi Beverage, Inc., for providing the
valuable opportunity to do the study on which the thesis is
based.

Mr. Melvin Stuart Harder III, for providing the problem
approach technique and for moral support.

Ms. Peg Michel, Specialist, School of Packaging and
Mr. G. William Hann, Student, School of Packaging for their

help in developing and creating the line layout.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A DEFINITION OF PACKAGING LINE PRODUCTIVITY

The Effect of Machine Interaction on
PrOductiVity O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

STATE OF THE ART: ACCUMULATORS IN THE PACKAGING

INDUSTRY 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0

Definition and Purpose . .
Types of Accumulators . .
In-line . . . . . . . .
Off-line . . . . . . .
The Factors Involved in De

Accumulation Needs . .
Capacity . . . . . . .
Position . . . . . . .
Type . . . . . . . . .

Current Methods Used in Determining

Accumulation Needs . . . . . . . . . . .

termining

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . .
Limits of the Investigation . . . . . .
METHODOLO GY O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0

Determination of Sample Size . . . . . .
Determination of Capacity . . . . . . .

RESULTS/DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION . . . . . .

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determination of Capacity . . . . . .
The Treatment of the Filler Downtime . .
Determination of Accumulator Dimensions
Determination And Analysis of Cost . . .
Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . .

iii

vi

10

10
11
ll
13

15
16
l8
19

20
26
31
32

34
35

38

38
38
43
45
47
48

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O

A.

B.

H.

LINE RELIABILITY CALCULATION . . . . . .

CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE ACCUMULATION
REQUIREMENTS FROM THE GARVEY CORPORATION

FORMULA TO DETERMINE OPTIMAL CONVEYOR
WIDTHS FOR ROUND OBJECTS . . . . . . . .

MACHINERY INFORMATION . . . . . . . . .

PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR BOTTLING
OPEMTION O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O

PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR FORKLIFT
OPERATION O C O O O O C C O O C O O O 0

RESULTS OF TIME STUDIES COMPLETED ON
FORKLIFT OPERATION O O O C O O O O C O C

FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF DOWNTIME
OF THE FILLER O O O O O O C O C C O O O

MFEMNCES O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

50

50

52

56
59

6O

61

62

67
73

LIST OF TABLES

Results of Time Studies Completed for Forklift
Operation I O O O O O O I O O C O O O I I O O O 62

Frequency of Filler Downtime . . . . . . . . . 67

Duration of Filler Downtime . . . . . . . . . . 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Stacked Conveyor Accumulator . . . . . . .

Intermittent Motion, Off-line Accumulation
Table 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

Rotary Accumulator . . . . . . . . . . . .
Multi-lane Accumulator . . . . . . . . . .
Line Layout of Bottling Operation . . . .

Diagram Illustrating the Equilateral
Triangle Pattern of Round Objects . . . .

Diagram Illustrating the Optimal Conveyor
Width for Round Objects . . . . . . . . .

vi

12

l3
14
15
28.

56

57

INTRODUCTION

Productivity continues to gain greater prominence
in the packaging industry. One way to increase productivity
is through the use of accumulation on the packaging line.
Application of accumulation is the subject of this thesis.
It is proposed that through the use of accumulation the
productivity of a packaging line can be increased by a
reduction in the labor requirement, while maintaining the
same level of production. An investigation was carried
out to demonstrate this concept.

The purpose of the thesis is threefold. First, it is
a compilation of the scattered information on packaging
line accumulation and its effect on packaging line
productivity. Secondly, the information is organized in
such a way to be used as an educational tool at the
undergraduate and graduate level in the School of Packaging.
The final purpose in the thesis is to design and carry out
one application of the principles of accumulation on a real
installation and to estimate its effect on productivity.
This application will serve to illustrate packaging line
efficiency and productivity instruction to undergraduate

and graduate students.

A DEFINITION OF PACKAGING LINE PRODUCTIVITY

Productivity has gained greater prominence in the
packaging industry over the last few years and its
importance continues to grow. The purpose of this discussion
is to investigate this increasing importance, examine the
range of definitions of productivity, and determine an
effective definition for use in this study.

The words productivity and efficiency bring to mind many
different connotations. However, a broad description can

encompass both of these words and all the variables that come

13 achievement

Eff1c1ency = expectation'

to mind. According to Hine:
Hine continues by saying that expectation is "the best estimate
of what you anticipate producing based on calculation or
accumulated experience....Achievement is an evaluation of

17 describes

actual production performance." Kealey
productivity as the ability to produce on time, within the
lowest cost, and at the required capacity. Other definitions
of productivity and efficiency are similar to these general
descriptions.

Productivity has gained and continues to gain importance
in the packaging industry for one primary reason.
Economically, increasing productivity increases a firm's

operational capacity and reduces its per unit operating costs.

With the high cost of money (seventeen to twenty percent

2

interest)and the high cost of building a new plant
(increasing at the rate of ten percent per year) these
factors become increasingly more important.

One economic benefit of increasing productivity is that
it allows for an increase in output or capacity with minimal
increases in input. Increasing capacity can imply a
corresponding increase in input. However, through increased
efficiency or greater productivity, increased outputs can be
achieved which may in turn satisfy capacity requirements.

17 who considers a

This idea is clearly illustrated by Kealey
capacity problem an opportunity to improve efficiency.

Another benefit of increasing capacity with minimal increases
in inputs is the chance to avoid the expenditures of expansion.
This is a key advantage in today's economic environment. A

27

recent article in Package‘Engineering, supports this by

 

stating, "Along with the vestigial remains of prior affluent

years, industrial floor space has become a precious commodity."
Another economic benefit of increased productivity is the
chance to reduce operating costs. These savings are direct
benefits to the firm that involve no risk. According to Frank

Paine,26

”any work which is able to improve the efficiency of
the process, its productivity...is potentially capable of
massive savings to the manufacturer (and) lower costs to the

user..." Gillete, a major American firm, aims to "improve

productivity because it lowers costs and improves the

profitability of (their) organization."17 For the past

few years Gillette has been able to offset 25 percent
of its yearly costs by increasing productivity.

There are innumerable factors which are directly related
to productivity. It is not the intention of this paper to
attempt to discuss all of them, but rather to mention the
major components that have definite quantitative bearing on
packaging line productivity and its measurement. Briefly,
these include the quality of the output, the packaging
material, the product, the human element, and the mechanical
element.l4 These factors are affected by countless other
inputs as well as by each other. This situation makes it
difficult to determine one singular and effective method to
measure productivity. One way to measure productivity is
to monitor per worker output as suggested by Kealey. Gorton
and Smithll prepose mechanical output or the number of units
a machine will produce per hour as a viable measurement.

One can derive several other types of productivity
measurements from this method by incorporating allowances
for material tolerances, operating conditions and quality.
The productivity of an entire line can be determined by its

final output which considers each individual machine and

the effects they have on each other. Another method used

Output

to quantify productivity is simply: Productivity = Input'

The output can be defined as the final product and the

inputs can vary. Typical inputs include material, energy,

and labor. According to Hinel3 packaging line

efficiency can be defined in four ways: the use of machine
time, the use of packaging materials, the production of

an efficient pack, and the use of labor in the operation.
Hine suggests that line personnel, their training, their
positions on the line, and the number of operators employed,
all influence the efficiency of the line. If it is possible
to decrease the number of operators on a line and maintain
the same operational capacity, a higher productivity can

be achieved. Inputs have been reduced while the output has
remained at the same level. To serve the purpose of this
paper, productivity will be considered as line efficiency
and line efficiency will be measured as the use of labor in

a packaging line. Expressed another way:

final output

labor input . Th1s 13 the relat1onsh1p

 

productivity =
that will be considered for evaluation of productivity

later on in the paper.

Thegffect of Machine_;nteraction on Productivity

13 "most of the literature on

According to Dennis Hine
machine efficiency concentrates on the measurement of machine
running time, that is achievement, and the analysis of the
duration and causes of lost production time." The running
time of a packaging machine can be measured as reliability or
the probability that a machine will be Operating. A machine
with a 90 percent reliability rating indicates the machine
will operate 90 percent of the time it is supposed to operate.
Hine says reliability is determined by taking into account the
duration and frequency of downtime. Downtime is the actual
time a machine is not functioning during operating time. As
downtime increases for an individual machine or entire line,
the reliability of that machine or line decreases. Since a
packaging line is a linkage of machines, the overall line
reliability is determined in part by each individual machine's

23 a machine in a line

reliability. According to Muramatsu,
cannot yield its individual reliability because it is dependent
on the preceding machine(s) to operate. This non-productive
time is defined as idle time, the time a machine has to wait
for input to operate. Therefore one machine's downtime will

result in idle time in the succeeding machines. Muramatsu

continues with the suggestion that "because of this idling

time the operational efficiency (reliability) of the entire
line has to decrease." This phenomenon is referred to as
machine interaction. To serve the purpose of this
investigation, machine interaction will be considered as

a negative condition because it reduces the overall line
reliability and therefore reduces the total line efficiency.
This is evidenced by Domke's9 statement that the efficiency
of a packaging line is impaired by the number of linkages in
the line. Machine interaction increases with the number

of machines in the line and overall line efficiency decreases.

15 the container handling division of Metal Box,

Metamatic,
Ltd. has demonstrated through analyses that low efficiencies
are often caused by the inability of the line to compensate
for the inevitable short stoppages of one component. Each
machine is dependent on the preceding machine for its own
input, which in turn determines its own output. If the
first machine is down, the second machine will not reach its
own rate of output or reliability simply because there is no
input.

13 output is affected in six

According to a Pira study
ways. These are: machine inefficiency, machine-material
interaction, faulty packaging materials, inadequate
maintenance, poor operation of the line and machine
mismatching. As problems arise in all of these areas the
machine interaction increases, leading to lower line

efficiencies.

Machine mismatching is an imbalance in the line due to

machine speeds. Each machine has an individual speed and
if these speeds are not closely matched in the line the faster
machine may experience more downtime. It may have to wait
for input from a slower operating machine. Closely matched
speed indicates the same speed throughout the line or a
progressively higher speed at each succeeding work station in
the line. This increase is not large enough to create an
imbalance in the line. Its purpose is to avoid the building up
of units between machines. One American brewery progressively
increases the machine speeds by 10 percent.12
As mentioned previously low reliabilities of machines and
correspondingly lower line reliabilities increase downtime.
This results in losses of production and increased operating
costs per unit. These costs are attributed to idle labor and
machine time. Briston3 emphasizes this point by suggesting that
small periods of downtime may result in the loss of hundreds of
units. An article in a recent issue of Package Engineering27
stated that, "the costs of downtime will leapfrog as packaged
products increase in dollar value and machinery runs faster."
An example of this is a candy bar packaging operation in which
line speeds can be 1000 packages per minute. If the line is
down for three minutes, a loss of 3000 units is the result.
Another negative consequence of downtime is the problem
of restart. Certain products require constant product flow.

Kidd and Company31 experiences this problem with their

Marshmallow Creme.

Continuous uninterrupted production might seem

no great feat except for what happens to

product consistency if the manufacturing and

flow in the production and flow of Marshmallow

Creme may trigger a weight variation among

jars - as a result of the interruption causing-

a variation in the air content of the Creme.3

The presence of agluing operation in an Operation can
result in another problem of restart. Once a line stops,
the gluing process is interrupted and the consistency of the
glue changes. This sometimes leads to insufficient tack and
unacceptable results. Labels may not adhere properly to a
bottle or cartons may not remain closed. Machine warm-up
time is another negative effect of restart. This is the time
required to start up a machine and allow it to reach
operational capacity. This time is costly in terms of lost
production time and idle labor.

Downtime is an inevitable occurence in any manufacturing
and packaging operation. However, its duration and frequency
can be monitored and steps taken to reduce downtime. One
American brewery attributed 70 percent of its production loss

24

to high frequency, short duration machine failures. This

loss can be alleviated with proper line design to decrease

machine interaction. Gorton and Smith11

mention the fact that
design factors can ensure efficiency by increasing overall
line reliability. These include line layout considerations

and the use of conveyor and accumulator units.

STATE OF THE ART:

ACCUMULATORS IN THE PACKAGING INDUSTRY

Definition and Purpose
An accumulator is a device designed to permit the
gathering of objects. According to Buckminster5 it is a
deViCe installed in a packaging line to fulfill one of three
functions. First, an accumulator retains items in a specific
area for a specific purpose. Second, an accumulator may
collate items for a specific purpose such as casepacking.
The third function of accumulation and the subject of this
paper is to provide a time cushion in the packaging line.

Gorton and Smith11

define an accumulator as a sponge or buffer
in the line to cover inevitable stoppages in the production
process. This time cushion increases the opportunity for a
machine to operate by minimizing machine interaction. The
accumulation unit alleviates the repercussions of downtime by
limiting the negative effects of downtime to the machine that
is actually down. This increases overall line efficiency.
This point is supported by Gorton and Smith's statement that,
"the selection of machinery...is only of value if reservoirs
and accumulators are correctly designed between the machines."

Computer simulation of packaging lines has suggested that
a line without any reservoirs between machines can have a

30

machine interaction rate of 100 percent. This means that

10

11

during every stoppage the entire production process stops,
increasing costly downtime and decreasing overall line
efficiency. Similar simulation has also demonstrated that
accumulation is necessary for improved line efficiency.19
Buckminster proposes that accumulators link the line together
in such a way as to insure high efficiency and he substantiates
this with an example of a pharmaceutical company that
increased line productivity by 25 percent through the use of
accumulators. Buckminster continues with the suggestion that
"accumulators give the user the ability to produce more units

in a given time period in the most efficient way so that

benefits are directly related to dollars and cents savings."

Types of Accumulators

 

There are two major types of accumulators. These are
in-line and off-line. Each functions in a different way and
each has specific types.

In-line

In-line accumulators are part of the line and items must
travel through the entire accumulator to reach the next station
in the line. An example of this type of accumulator is a
serpentine conveyor. The stacked serpentine (Figure 1) moves
units vertically and horizontally. By elevating and lowering
the product, this type of accumulator allows the user toachieve
greater capacity through maximum use of surface area amdceiling

height. The other type of serpentine accumulator moves the

12

product horizontally only. An example of this type of
in-line accumulator is a long conveyor that winds back and
forth hence the name "serpentine". The capacity of such

an accumulator is partially determined by the size of the
package as this size dictates the radius of the turns in the

conveyor. Larger containers will jam in tight corners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,HSMMfiCmmmenmwmm

Figure 1. Stacked Conveyor Accumulator

SOURCE: William Buckminster, "Accumulating," The
Packaging Encyclopedia (Chicago: Cahners PublishingT—I981),
p. 240.
Therefore they require larger corner radii than packages of
smaller dimensions. In-line accumulators are best suited for
unstable packages and where package orientation is important.
This system provides for first-in, first-out dispensing. The
density of containers in the accumulator is dependent on the

conveyor speed, conveyor width, and package size. Density is

defined as the number of units that can be in the accumulator

13

at any given time. This definition differs from the
conventional definition of density as mass per unit volume

as it considers mass (number of units) per unit surface area.
Density increases with slower conveyor speed, greater conveyor

widths and smaller packages.

Off-line

 

Off-line accumulators are not part of the actual packaging
line. They are an addition to the line that is used only when
the line is full. An accumulation table is a prime example of

an off-line accumulator (Figure 2). The table is attached to

1 m: .-.‘_“- unwrnimantst , " it vm'msagy 142‘;

 

 

a.
V it
..‘ll
.- \ 3" 1:531:33.
K; ;‘h‘"]‘| .
71 , ='9.-_:f‘;.. g;-. 3
" ~24£*£h3
q; ' ;asmmur
A , . .,2 .. - v:-
-. . ~ Load Uribad\'igi_.,g.:.v
y , H‘— ‘ .__v
C fi’b ‘

 

 

 

._., f
‘.70
v ’ .'.
..~~-,-
. .‘ . .r ;
. ‘ 2 ~ i”
' v ‘ 'i ‘H\ “‘h :1 -‘V '
‘ j ah~."=".4-§"~é'. 13.1.!- .. ‘ i '. I a
- ' ““ ‘ 0 -'~ " R l‘ ., bf . -., , - ' '.‘,
«1 mmmm Mmb-Ofl - -..-,_t~
..V. at. n. he“ Hg; ,
‘ . t .' :" . - -'. 5 r: '_."
Admmwmxfimblm-u«~-Ax"

;TE‘$ET\ . A . . _ . . .
~ I, - wwfinu. Jive-63‘“. utMiT-j ‘ ..L‘un' 30.3917: -’~7r:v'-" ". ‘

Figure 2. Intermittent Motion, Off-line Accumulation Table
SOURCE: William Buckminster, "Accumulating," The
Pacgiglng Enclycopedia (Chicago: Cahners Publishing, 1981),

p. 0.

the line but items are not required to travel through the

accumulator to reach the next station in the line. The items

14

will enter the table only when the upstream machines are
Operating and the downstream machines are not Operating.
In this situation the items will back up on the line and
enter the accumulation table until the downstream machines
are running again.

Other examples Of Off-line accumulators include rotary
and multi-lane. A rotary accumulator collects items on a
rotating disc. Products enter the accumulator in one
direction and continue in that direction until they enter the
line again (Figure 3).

Multi-lane accumulators consist of additional conveyors
on each side Of the main line conveyor. One runs in the
direction of the line while the other runs in the Opposite

direction (Figure 4).

 

   

 

/

Divener switch

 

 

4; Rotary Accumulator

K

Figure 3. Rotary Accumulator

SOURCE: William Buckminster, "Accumulating," The
ggaokaging Encyclopedia (Chicago: Cahners Publishing, 1981)
P. 240.

 

 

 

Multi-lanéAccumulator ‘
.- .v‘..—v 4-" 0 - ....

Figure 4. Multi-lane Accumulator

SOURCE: William Buckminster, "Accumulating," The
Packaging Encyclopedia (Chicago: Cahners Publishing, 1981)

p. 240

These accumulators allow the product to travel back up the
line (similar to a counterclockwise holding pattern) on the
one conveyor and enter the line again when it is sufficiently
empty to do so. This results in minimal scratching Of the
package by reducing the pressure on the products. This
pressure reduction is the result Of the counterclockwise

pattern flow of the packages.

The Factors Involved in Determining Accumulation Needs
The capacity, line position, and type of accumulator are
determined by several product and line factors. The first and

foremost factor is the space available in the plant. This

16

factor frequently prevents the accumulator from being its
Optimum size, in the Optimum location or Of the Optimum
type. According to one supplier Of accumulators, this
situation occurs because accumulation is rarely given

6 The needs is usually

consideration at the design level.
realized after the line has been designed, installed and is
currently running. This Opinion was supported by
conversations with four major users in the food,
pharmaceutical, and beverage industries.1' 12’ 21’ 28
Until very recently the majority Of users in the packaging
industry had considered accumulators a "necessary evil."
They did not want to install an accumulator unless they saw
a definite need for one. In other words, an agcumulator
was usually installed only after there was a proven line
deficiency without accumulation. This need usually has
been realized only during production. At this point in
time the problem Of space becomes critical and it appears

to be the primary limiting factor in the determination Of

accumulation needs in the packaging industry today.

Capacity

 

Accumulation "speeds and capacities are tailored for

individual products."4

Capacity is primarily determined
by space available, frequency and duration Of downtime,

product size, and the speeds Of the line.

17

Since accumulation is incorporated in a line to
reduce machine interaction, the frequency and duration
Of downtime can be analyzed and the most frequent duration
will determine the required capacity Of the accumulator.
Capacity is measured in time. A line with a machine
experiencing frequent downtime periods Of 5 minutes would
require an accumulator with a capacity of 5 minutes. The
accumulator can be placed before and/or after the machine
to isolate it and its effects from the line. This would
allow the line tO run while the machine is attended to.

The 5 minutes Of accumulation together with the differences
between the ingOing and outgoing conveyor speeds will
determine the number Of items that will accumulate in 5
minutes. This amount and the product size will determine
the Optimum dimensions Of the accumulator.

A similar method can be used that considers the average
number of units that will be in the accumulator. The number
is determined along with the standard deviation. An
accumulator can be designed with a capacity Of the average
plus 3 standard deviations. This capacity will insure that
the accumulator will prevent machine interaction 99.73

percent Of the time by providing sufficient accumulation

23 10

99.73 percent Of the time. However, according to Gill

3 standard deviations may not be adequate. This point will

be discussed more specifically later in the paper.
[According to one supplier Of accumulators6 a packaging

line with a speed of 400 packages per minute typically has

18

accumulation capacities Of one to two minutes. A line

speed of 75 packages per minute frequently has an

...—4
U

accumulation capacity of three to five minutes.; The faster
line has a lower capacity due to spatial limitations.
Cosmair, Incorporated uses five minute accumulation units
at critical points in a line that runs 230 cartons per
minute and this has increased productivity by creating a

16 These accumulation units were

non-stop Operation.
considered at the design level and thus are more effective
than units Of lesser capacities that may have been the result
Of not considering accumulation until the line has been
installed and running.

Even optimal capacities have limits. This is verified
by Buckminster,4 "anything more than the designed time
interval will usually require shutting down the line for
repairs and is considered to be outside the normal
capabilities Of a properly designed accumulator." The
designed time interval is the length of the most frequent
downtime Of the machine before or after the accumulator.
Accumulation is not designed to "compensate for a poorly
designed line but it will help bridge the short machine

stoppages that inevitably occur."33

Position

 

An accumulator is usually placed before and/or after a

sensitive machine to isolate it from the line. A sensitive

19

machine is defined as the machine in the line that
experiences the most downtime in terms Of frequency and

33 the ideal.

duration. According to Van Rootselaar
locations for accumulation are before the filler, between

the filler and labeller, and between the labeller and

packer. In effect, this segments the line into several
independent portions. This drastically reduces machine
interaction. It is<XNmMN1tO place an accumulator after

the filling machine to keep it running if the line stops
downstream.4 In bottling operations the filler is the

center Of the Operation and Often the most costly piece of
equipment on the line. Therefore it appears to be

beneficial to keep it running at all costs. This is achieved
by placing an accumulator before the most sensitive machine
toward the end Of the line. Since the machines in a line
usually run progressively faster, this allows for the machines

downstream Of the accumulator tO catch up by virtue Of their

higher speed, when they are Operating.

229.2

The type Of accumulator is determined primarily by the
product. Its weight, size, shape, and orientation -
requirements determine the Optimal accumulator. Round Objects
work well with multi-lane or rotary accumulators, while

-rectangular Objects work best with a serpentine conveyor.5

20

Current Methods Used in Determining Accumulation Needs
According to Buckminster, "packagers are just
beginning tO understand accumulators, hOw they work, where
they work best, and how tO best apply them...(and it)...is
extremely difficult and costly to predetermine the size Of
accumulation in assessing its greatest impact on
productivity." TO select the best accumulator for a packaging
line Buckminster says the entire line must be understood and
it must be accepted that the machines will all stop at one

29 suggests that the questions that

time or another. Serchuk
should be considered include: how long and how Often the
downtimes are, how much accumulation will be needed to
accomodate those stoppages and how the accumulated amount will
be emptied. This amount must be disposed Of quickly enough
so that the accumulator will be ready for the next stoppage.

The current methods used tO determine accumulation needs
range from natural insight and previous line experience to
computer simulation. Some units are installed without any
prior planning or consideration as to the Optimum Option.
Other units are installed only after extensive use Of formulas
or computer decision models.

One supplier uses an efficiency calculation to determine
the best location in the line to place an accumulator.5

They use a mathematical progression to calculate line

efficiency. (For a complete discussion Of this calculation

21

refer to Appendix A.) By placing an accumulator in the
line, the line is divided into independent segments with
independent reliabilities. A line with four machines with
reliabilities Of 70, 80, 60, and 90 percent would have an
overall line reliability Of 30.24 percent (.70 x .80 x .60
x .90.) However, by placing an accumulator in the middle of
the line, the line becomes two separate lines with two
separate reliabilities. These are 56 percent (.70 x .80)
and 54 percent (.60 x .90). If the accumulator is Of the
proper capacity it will prevent any machine interaction
between the second and third machines. ‘The overall line
reliability is the lower Of the two rates or 54 percent.
This method considers the section Of the line with the lowest
reliability as the highest possible reliability Of the line.
The Optimal locations for an accumulator can be determined
by locating it in every possible position mathematically to
find out all the possible effects Of accumulation. The
location or locations with the highest reliability are
considered to be the optimum choice. ¥This method does not
take into account the variability Of machine speeds.
Computer models can be used tO simulate the packaging
line and its activities. Such .models can be used to determine
Optimal locations and capacities. The current cost Of one
computer simulation program ranges from seventy-five to one

hundred and fifty dollars. Currently these programs have

22

restricted use because Of the cost Of collecting the required
data and the limited ability Of users tO supply the computer
with this required data. Some Of the data that is required
includes work station cycle times, line speeds, capacities

Of accumulators, frequency of downtime, duration of downtime
due tO failure, machine warm-up time, length Of a typical
production period, and the number of production periods.16
The GALS program or Generalized Assembly Line Simulator has
been used in the packaging field tO determine accumulation
needs. According to Buckminster this program also

determines when extra work stations are necessary and where
excess capacity exists. Another computer program, P.L.U.M.
or Production Line Uprating Methods has been used by Pabst
Brewery to evaluate line performance.24 This particular
program has saved Pabst over one million dollars. These
programs not only allow the packaging engineer tO evaluate
current performance, they also are capable of changing the
inputs tO investigate other possible Options.

Another factor considered when designing accumulation
units is an equation that determines the best conveyor width
for round Objects (Appendix C). The Optimal width allows the
bottles to accumulate in a pattern that avoids jamming and

8 Many suppliers Of accumulation units have

package damage.
developed their own in-house formulas to aid in the

quantification Of accumulation requirements. These formulas

23

take into account product size, incoming and outgoing
conveyor speeds, and accumulation area. (Appendix C).

The literature available and conversations with users
and suppliers indicate that the most common and valued method
to determine accumulation requirements are the thoughts and
ideas of the people who actually need the accumulator. The
user knows the line and why accumulation is required. When
this knowledge is combined with the spatial limitations Of the
line and the product characteristics, the accumulations unit
is already delineated. According to one supplier, the
customer's experience and insight are more valuable than any
equations they currently use. One major American food company
determined their own requirements and designed and installed an
accumulation unit based on their knowledge of the line and the
spatial limitations. They have reduced the effect Of downtime
in this particular line by 37.5 percent.2 This reduction
could have been even higher but the firm was critically
restricted by space. The installed accumulator alleviates
the negative effects Of downtimes up to ten minutes. Anything
longer than this stops the line.

In conclusion, the current state Of the art is diverse and
discrepancies exist. Exact methods are available to determine
accumulation needs. However, these methods require precise
data and are limited tO specific applications to function

successfully. The technology of the user in the packaging

24

industry is not as advanced as the technology Of the
supplier who attempts to use the computer decision models.
According to Gene Harris,12 a packaging engineer at
Carling Brewery, computer programs are only "after the fact."
He explains this by saying that the results of the program
only verify what is already accepted. Another problem with
the simulation is that it does not consider all the inputs
that affect the line and therefore cannot give the user an
accurate prediction of what to expect. The P.L.U.M. system
is tOO specific at this point in time tO be successfully
applied to industries other than the beverage industry. Hence
the technology is available but is not widely used. The
industry as a whole still seems to rely on intuition and the
actual space available tO determine accumulation needs,
capacities, line positions and types. An example to
demonstrate that the use Of accumulators is still in the art
stage and has not reached the science stage is a comment by a
pharmaceutical packaging engineer, who says that he will put
an accumulator wherever he can and continually used one half
hour as the capacity Of the unit.21
Up until this point in time accumulation units have been
installed primarily to increase productivity by decreasing the
negative effects of downtime. One major supplier of
accumulators claims that 80 to 90 percent Of accumulators are

bought for this reason, i.e. to avoid the situation where one

25

machine's downtime stops the entire line or a major portion

Of the line. Another application Of accumulation tO increase
productivity is to use accumulators to balance a line. In
this application the line may be running smoothly but
Opportunities still exist to increase its productivity. In
this specific investigation it is proposed that balancing

the speeds of machines in this line will increase productivity

by reducing the total labor requirement of the packaging line.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Object Of this study is to determine how
accumulation can increase the productivity Of a packaging
line. For the purpose of this investigation, productivity
will be measured as the number Of workers on a packaging
line. It is proposed that through the use Of accumulation
the number of operators on a packaging line can be reduced,
thus increasing productivity. A specific investigation will

be used to exemplify this procedure. We will see that in

final output

Iabor input the labor 1nput

 

the relationship, productivity =
can be reduced by use Of accumulation while maintaining the
same final output, thus increasing productivity.

The firm involved in this investigation is a bottling
plant which bottles carbonated beverages. The firm employs
twenty-five people Of which eight are line Operators. The
annual output Of this company is approximately 500,000
twenty-four bottle cases. The line handles ten and sixteen
ounce returnable glass bottles with a size changeover time of
thirty minutes. Bottles are stored in wooden cases in a
warehouse which is in the same building as the bottling line.
They are transported to the line by forklift truck. The
bottles are washed, filled, capped, casepacked, and then

returned tO the warehouse for storage until delivery to local

26

27

outlets. The bottles are uncased prior to washing and
the wooden cases are repaired and placed onto a conveyor
which runs under the line tO the casepacker (Figure 5).
The washer is capable Of handling 144 bottles per minute
(twelve cycles of twelve bottles per cycle). The bottles
are washed in a caustic solution at lSOOF. They then travel
single file down a flat chain conveyor to a starwheel.
Once properly positioned by the starwheel, these bottles
travel through a light beam which detects foreign Objects
in the bottles. The device automatically rejects bottles
that obstruct the beam Of light. The bottles then travel
to a rotary filler that also has a starwheel to position
the bottles prior tO filling. The filler has thirty-four
heads and fills to level by pressure-gravity. The bottles
move on tO a fifteen head rotary capper where crown caps
are applied. The filler and capper are synchronized tO
operate at 142 bottles per minute. Therefore, the overall
speed of the line is 142 bottles per minute.

After being capped the bottles travel to the
casepacker on a 31 foot long flat chain conveyor. They are
mechanically counted and dated on this conveyor. The
conveyor widens ahead Of the casepacker to collate the
bottles in four rows for casepacking. The bottles are
channeled through guide rails and are properly aligned for

casepacking. The casepacker fills one case at a time by

28

WALL

Accunuluflon Area
For Rejected Baffle:

CAPPER ® . SfarWheel G

I [[IIIIII LILIHIIII

 

 

 
   

FILLER

v

IlllIllllIIIIIl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1'62”.é

WALL WASHER

 

Wiennuu-

 

 

 

..F
31!.x2!

MIXING
E O UIPMEN T

 

     
  

 

 

..-AmA

 

 

     
   

: : ' i
= : : I
E i
= : ' I
E : O i l
— = I I
= = " "' ‘ ' "' "‘
- - ' '
- = I l
- l I
I n
® 0.--- ...-J

FORKLIFT Dfpfifiéinz’m

OPERA TOR

 

Figure 5. Line Layout of Bottling Operation

 

29

dropping the bottles through a grid of thin metal fingers
into a case that has been elevated to receive the bottles.
This casepacker has a "no case-no packing" feature. The
machine is capable Of handling 24 bottle cases. According
to the supplier, Lodge and Shiply, the rated speed of the
casepacker is 20 cases per minute, this translates to 480
bottles per minute. This is much faster than the overall
line speed of 142 bottles per minute.

The cases are stacked on conventional wooden pallets
and taken tO the warehouse by forklift truck. A pallet
holds 720 sixteen ounce bottles (30 cases) or 864 ten ounce
bottles (36 cases). Operators are located at the case
unloader, washer, filler-capper, and at the casepacker.
(Figure 5) .

Through extensive analysis and machine timings it
was determined that a wide range Of machine speed was
present in this particular packaging line. The widest
range exists between the filler, at a speed Of 142 bottles
per minute and the casepacker at 480 bottles per minute.
This creates an imbalance in the line which results in
the fastest machine running well below capacity. This
discrepancy in machine speeds prevents the faster machine
from Operating automatically. Thus an Operator is required_
tO run this machine at a semi-automatic speed of six to nine

cases per minute.

30

Presently three men are required to operate this
machine, load the pallet, and transport the pallet tO
the warehouse by forklift truck. One Operator runs
the casepacker and pushes the full cases to the end of
the conveyor. The second Operator takes the cases from
the conveyor and stacks them on the pallet. The third
drives the forklift truck and participates in various
activities between runs to the warehouse. These
activities include helping repair cases, loading the
pallets, unloading the cases, and monitoring the washer.
However, this Operator is idle a significant amount Of
the time and there seems to be nO specific jOb for him to
do between his trips to the warehouse.

Through the use Of an accumulator, located ahead Of
the casepacker, the labor requirement at this work station
may be reduced to two operators. The accumulator will
accumulate bottles while one operator is away from the line
on the forklift truck. During this time the casepacker will
not Operate. The Operator will start the casepacker when he
returns from the warehouse. At this time the casepacker
will run automatically and the forklift driver along with
another operator will load the pallet. The accumulator will
allow the casepacker to run at its automatic speed by
providing enough bottles and sufficient pressure to activate

the automatic device.

31

Limits Of the Investigation

The purpose in this investigation is to increase the
productivity of a bottling line by the use Of accumulation
and to determine the optimal capacity of such an
accumulator. In conducting the investigation, it is
assumed that the determined line speed will be maintained
at about 142 bottles per minute, and that the casepacker
is capable Of Operating at its automatic speed. It is
also assumed that the forklift truck is capable Of
transporting two pallets at once to and from the line.
Factors that will not be considered include the net
output of the line based upon bottle breakage and
rejection, variances in the timings Of the forklift
Operation due to additional transportation Of pallets
within the warehouse or to delivery trucks.

The factors that are considered are factors that
were determined tO have direct bearing on the forklift
Operation. Any factors which are not a part of the
regular production process are considered outside the

scope Of the investigation.

METHODOLOGY

The purpose Of the accumulator is to reduce the labor
requirement of a packaging line, thus increasing its
productivity. TO accomplish this, the accumulator will be
placed immediately before the casepacker because its purpose
is to reduce the labor requirement at the casepacker. To
function successfully, its capacity must be defined as
accurately as possible.

The required capacity Of the unit was statistically
determined through stopwatch time study. The subject Of these
timings was the forklift Operation, in order to determine how
long the operator was away from the line. It was deemed
necessary to the analysis to define each element Of Operation
of this line and Of the forklift transport to the warehouse
and return. This was done using the Process Flow Charts
displayed in Appendices E and F. Charting for the packaging
line was not particularly useful, but the charting Of the
forklift Operation was. The forklift Operation consists Of
the Operator walking from the casepacker to the forklift
truck, getting on the truck, starting it, picking up a loaded
pallet, driving to the warehouse, depositing the load, picking
up a loaded pallet of empty bottles, returning to the line,

depositing the new load Of empty bottles near the uncaser,

32

33

returning tO the casepacker, parking the truck, and

walking back tO the casepacker. After charting the forklift
Operation, it was decided that it would not be necessary

to time the elements Of this Operation because doing so
would not add any valuable information for the purposes Of
the study. The purpose Of collecting the timings was to
determine how long the casepacker would be unattended.

It was not the purpose Of the timings to evaluate the

forklift Operation in itself.

34

Determination Of Sample Size

In this study the critical factor is not the average

 

number Of bottles in the accumulator at any one time, but
rather an accurate determination Of the standard deviation
to be added to the average in order to achieve suitable
capacity. The standard deviation is important because the
accumulator must be able to accomodate the varying numbers Of
containers that are the result Of longer trips to and from
the warehouse. An accurate standard deviation will allow for
adequate capacity for the longer trips.

Based upon a pilot study sample size Of nine timings and
an eighty percent level Of confidence, the sample size for

10 The

the full study was determined to be 200 timings.
statistical power Of this test is determined by the accuracy
of the standard deviation Of the sample. With a sample Of
200 this test has an approximate 80 percent confidence level
of finding the true population standard deviation within 5
percent.10 This means the standard deviation Of the sample
will be less than or equal to 1.05 times the standard

deviation Of the population (see equation 1).

5 sample 4 (l . 05) population (1)

The power Of the test increases to 90 percent when the standard

deviation Of the sample is less than or equal to 1.10 times

3s

10

the standard deviation of the pOpulation. (See equation 2) .

5 sample 5, (1.10) population (2)

Samples were collected on different days, at all times of
the day, and with different products and bottles sizes.
A conventional stopwatch was used in this study and time was
computed in minutes. If an apparent reason could be determined
for an uncharacteristically long timing it was not included in
the sample. These reasons included: the forklift operator
having tO wait tO drive through a passageway because Of repair
work being done, changing Of drivers in the warehouse, stopping
on the way tO or from the warehouse or when the Operator
returned on a different forklift. All Of these situations were
determined not to be part Of the regular production Operation
or not a specific work element Of the forklift Operation.
Therefore, they dO not represent a typical timing.
Atypically short runs were not included in the sample
either. These timings were primarily due to the Operator
taking a load tO the warehouse or bringing one back to the
line but not both in the same run. ,, This occurred durigg
start up when the first bottles were being brought to the
line and.during shutdown when the last bottles were taken

back tO the warehouse.

36
Determination Of Capacity
After collecting the data, the mean and standard deviation
Of the sample were calculated. The maximum expected range of
expected results (trip time) is approximately 6.5 standard

10 the expected range Of timings

deviations. According to Gill,
for a sample of 500 would be about six times the standard
deviation (6 x 5). TO compensate for the fact that the number
Of trips over a period of one year is much greater than 500 the
maximum expected range has been increased to 6.5 times the
standard deviation (6.5 x s). This is close to the value given
by Gill for 1000 Observations (6.477 x s). The value Of the
ratio Of range tO standard deviation increases very slowly with
larger sample sizes. This expected range Of times was

centered on the average timing Of the Operation to determine the

minimum and maximum accumulation levels necessary to provide

uninterrupted production. The maximum level is the most critical

factor in determining the capacity of the accumulator. By adding

one half Of the range tO the average time, the maximum capacity

Of the accumulator can be defined (see equation 3).

T = t + 3.255t

Where: T = design time for accumulation (3)
t = average trip time
3t = standard deviation Of the trip

time
This time value was then multiplied by the line speed to
determine the maximum number Of bottles that are expected tO

accumulate over long term production periods. This number Of

37

bottles was then multiplied by the conveyor surface area
occupied by one bottle tO determine the size Of the accumulator.
The conveyor surface area occupied by one bottle was
determined by calculating the surface area occupied by

twelve nested bottles. The twelve nested bottles formed a
parallelogram (see Figure 6 Appendix C for an illustration

Of the nested bottle pattern). Therefore the total conveyor
surface area occupied by twelve bottles equals the base times
the height Of the quadrilateral (A = bh). Once this figure
was calculated, it was divided by twelve to determine the
surface area per bottle. This resulted in 4.75 square inches
for the ten ounce bottle and 6.10 square inches for the
sixteen ounce bottle. Once the capacity Of the accumulator
was determined, the Optimal type was investigated based upon
the required capacity, package shape, and the space available
in the plant. The method Of emptying the unit was also
considered to assure that it would be emptied quickly enough

not to interfere with the next accumulated amount of bottles.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The average time Of the forklift operation was
determined to be 3.92 minutes. The standard deviation Of
the sample was .568 minutes. TO determine the maximum
value of the range 3.25 standard deviations were added to
the average. This increased the value to 5.77 minutes or
3.92 minutes + 3.25 (.568 minutes). At a line speed Of
142 bottles per minute this time results in the accumulation
of 820 bottles (5.77 minutes x 142 bottles/minute). This
would be the maximum number Of bottles that would accumulate

at the casepacker while the operator is away from the line.

Determination of Capacity
TO determine the size Of the accumulator, the time
required tO empty the accumulator must be considered. At a
rated speed Of 20 cases per minute, the time required to
casepack the accumulated amount would be 1.7 minutes (see
equation 4).

820‘bottles
20 cases/minute x 24 bottles/Ease

 

= 1.7 minutes (4)

This assumes that the operator will maintain this speed in
loading the cases ontO the pallet. However, tO be more

realistic 80 percent Of the rated speed will be used in

38

39

this investigation. This results in a time Of 2.13 minutes

to empty the accumulator (see equation 5).
(5)

820 bottles

20 cases/minute x 24 bottles/case x .80 = 2’13 minutes

This increases the required capacity Of the accumulator to
7.9 minutes (5.77 minutes + 2.13 minutes). This results in an

accumulation Of 1,122 bottles (see equation 6).

(7.9 minutes of accumulation) x (142 bottles/minute) =

1,122 bottles (6)

The 1,122 bottles result in a total surface area Of 37 square
feet for the 10 ounce bottle and 47.5 square feet for the 16

ounce bottle (see equations 7 and 8).

1,122 bottles x 4.75 square inches/ten ounce bottles = (7)
5,330 square inches = 37 square feet
1,122 bottles x 6.10 square inches /sixteen ounce bottle =

6,844 square inches = 47.5 square feet (8)

TO accomodate both bottle sizes, the accumulator must have a
spatial capacity of 47.5 square feet.

The capacity Of the forklift Operation must also be
considered. One pallet is capable Of holding 30 cases or 720
sixteen ounce bottles (24 bottles/case x 30 cases/pallet).
CFO maintain an efficient Operation, only full pallets will be

izaken to the warehouse. The accumulated amount of 1,122

40

bottles will require one loaded pallet and one partially
loaded pallet. Therefore the Operator will take two loaded
pallets tO the warehouse every other time. This
arrangement will avoid a long term build up Of bottles but
simultaneously allow for the transport of full pallet loads
to the warehouse. The 1,122 bottles converts to one full
pallet Of 720 bottles and one partially full pallet of 402
bottles (see equation 9).

1,122 accumulated bottles (9)

- 720 capacity Of one pallet (16 ounce bottles)

 

402 remaining bottles (partially full pallet)

The Operator would take the full pallet to the warehouse.
Upon returning tO the line, he would fill the partially full
pallet and entirely fill another pallet and transport both to
the warehouse at one time. The partially full pallet would

have the capacity of 318 bottles (see equation 10).

720 capacity Of one pallet (16 ounce bottles)
-402 partial load from previous Operation (10)

318 capacity of partially full pallet

This capacity is not enough to accomodate the predicted
accumulation of 1,122 bottles (see equation 11).

1,122 predicted amount Of accumulated bottles
- 720 capacity Of one pallet (11)
- 318 capacity Of partially full pallet

84 bottles (overflow)

41

However, while collecting the data for this project, it

was noted that the filler stopped frequently during a typical
production period. These stops were recorded (Appendix H)
and the average frequency and its duration were calculated.
This value is approximately 5.2 minutes Of downtime per hour

(see equation 12).

29.7 seconds average downtime x 10.8 downtimes/hour =
321 seconds Of downtime/hour or 5.3 minutes Of
downtime / hour (12)
When the filler is down the entire line stops running and no
bottles will accumulate in the proposed accumulator. These
occurrences of downtime reduce total production and therefore
the required capacity Of the pallets to empty the accumulator
is also reduced.
In one hour 8,520 bottles travel through the line,
(142 bottles/minute x 60 minutes/hour). However with 5.3
minutes Of total line downtime (from the filler downtime) the
total production in one hour is predicted to be 7,767 bottles
(142 bottles/minute x 54.7 minutes Of running time/hour).

In one hour approximately eight trips are made to the

warehouse. If the Operator takes two pallets every other time
he will take twelve pallets tO the warehouse per hour.

Twelve pallet loads result in 8,640 bottles (720 bottles/
pallet x 12 pallets). This capacity exceeds the expected
number Of bottles produced per hour (7,767). Therefore the

expected downtime Of the filler will allow the accumulation

42

system tO handle the capacity Of the line while
simultaneously maintaining the practice Of transporting
full pallets tO the warehouse.

When the line is running ten ounce bottles, the
operator will take two pallets tO the warehouse approximately
every third trip. This is determined again by the capacity
Of the pallet and the practice Of only transporting full
pallets to the warehouse. One pallet holds 864 ten ounce
bottles (24 bottles/case x 36 cases/pallet). It will take
approximately 1.3 pallets tO empty the predicted amount Of

1,122 accumulated bottles (see equation 13).

1,122 accumulated bottles (13)

- 864 ‘capacity Of one pallet (ten ounce bottles)

 

258 remaining bottles (partially full pallet)

This pallet with 258 bottles is approximately one third full
(see equation 14).

258 partial load Of pallet =
864 capacity Of pallet

.30 (14)

Therefore the volume created by three accumulations would

require approximately four full pallets (see equation 15).

3 x 1,122 = 3,366 bottles (volume created by (15)
three accumulations)

3,456 bottles (capacity of four pallets)

4 x 864

3,456 bottles - 3,366 bottles = 90 bottles
(excess pallet capacity)

43

With an expected hourly production Of 7,767 bottles (142
bottles/minute x 54.7 minutes of running time per hour)

the forklift Operator will take approximately nine full
pallets to the warehouse per hour. This translates into
seven trips to the warehouse with the operator transporting
two pallets in two of the seven trips. The pallets with an
excess capacity Of 90 bottles will remain at the casepacker
until they are completely full before transport to the
warehouse.

These predictions of pallet transportation are only
generalizations. Various factors will change the daily
pattern. The one thing that will remain constant is that
only fully loaded pallets will be taken tO thewarehouse.
Any partially full pallets will be left at the line until
they are filled to capacity. Therefore, this discussion only
attempts to describe the pattern that may be Observed most

frequently over time.

‘The Treatment of Filler Downtime

 

In the above calculations the treatment of the filler
downtime varied. The purpose of this section is tO explain
why the downtime was not considered in the determination Of
accumulator capacity but was considered in the discussion on
pallet transport. In collecting the filler downtime data no
pattern could be found. The frequency and durations Of the

filler downtime were estimated by ten measurements which

44

showed occurrence to be extremely irregular. Therefore

it was deemed best not to include such a factor in the
determination Of accumulator capacity. The irregularity
Of downtime occurrence was such that at any time in the
production day the filler could be expected to run
uninterrupted for the full 7.9 minutes Of accumulator
capacity or more. If downtime was incorporated into the
calculation tO determine accumulator capacity, this would
result in an accumulator of insufficient capacity. Such

a situation defeats the purpose of the accumulator because
once it is filled to capacity, the line would have tO stop
until the accumulator begins to empty.

The reason the downtime was incorporated in the
description Of pallet transportation is that it provided a
more realistic situation and thus allowed for the prediction
Of a more accurate pallet transport schedule. Also, any error
in the prediction Of line downtime (due to the filler) is not
as detrimental in determining the pallet transport schedule.
As previously mentioned an error in predicting the capacity
Of the accumulator is very significant. However, with regard
tO the pallet transport schedule, any error in the prediction
0f filler downtime will only result in a change in the number
Of pallets taken tO the warehouse at any one time. Any
changes in this schedule will not affect the overall

production Of the line.

45

Determinations of Accumulator Dimensions

 

As previously determined, the spatial requirement Of
the accumulator is 47.5 square feet. The area available
for accumulation is approximately 62 square feet or 31 feet
x 2 feet (see Figure 5). TO avoid problems Of accessibility
to the machines before and after the accumulator (the filler
and casepacker) the length Of the accumulator will be limited
to 29 feet. The width Of the accumulator is determined by
the formula explained in Appendix C. Adjustable guiderails
will be used to allow for Optimal widths for both bottle
sizes.

The minimum width is determined by dividing the total
required area by the maximum length. This results in a
minimum width Of 19.7 inches for the sixteen ounce bottle

(see equation 16).

(16)

47.5 square feet Of required capacity=

29 feet maximum length of accumulator 1'64 feet or

19.7 inches
To determine the Optimal conveyor width for the sixteen ounce
bottle a mathematical formula was used. For a complete
explanation Of the formula used in equation 1?, refer to

Appendix C.

w (N-l) x D x sin 60° + D + .15(D)
W = (9-1) x 2.594 x .866 + 2.594 + .39 (17)
W = 20 inches or 1.67 feet

46

The value for N was determined by assuming a value of
19.7 inches for W (minimum required width tO achieve a
capacity Of 47.5 square feet). Then the exact value for W
was found by using 9 as the value for N. This allows for
a smooth bottle flow by creating a leading row Of 9 bottles
which.are at a 600 angle tO the guiderail. Therefore a
total capacity Of 48.4 square feet is realized (1.67 feet x
29 feet = 48.4 square feet) exceeding the required capacity
Of the proposed accumulator (47.5 square feet).

TO determine the minimum width for the ten ounce bottle
the total required surface area is divided by the maximum
length. This results in a minimum width Of 15.4 inches (see

equation 18).
(18)
= 1.28 feet or

15.4 inches

37 square feet Of required capacity
29 feet maximum length Of accumulator

To determine the optimal conveyor width, the same formula

can be used to find the Optimal ten ounce width that was used

to find the sixteen ounce bottle width (see equation 19).

w = (N-1)x D x sin 60° + D + .15 (D)
W = (8-1) x 2,406 x .866 + 2.406 + .36 (19)
W = 17.4 inches or 1.45 feet

As with the sixteen ounce bottle, the value for N was
determined by assuming a value Of 15.4 inches for W. Then
the exact value for W was found by using 8 as the value for N.

This allows for a smooth bottle flow by creating a leading row

47

Of 8 bottles which are at a 600 angle to the guiderail.
Therefore a total capacity Of 42 square feet is realized
(1.45 feet x 29 feet = 42 square feet) exceeding the
required capacity of 37 square feet for the ten ounce
bottle. Adjustable guiderails will be used tO change

from the 20 inch (1.67 feet) width to the 17.4 inch

(1.45 feet) width and vice versa to maintain smooth bottle
flow with both bottle sizes.

The type Of accumulator proposed is simply a wider
conveyor driven by a stainless steel flat chain. The
required capacity Of the accumulator was satisfied by widening
the conveyor. It was chosen as the most likely Option due

tO its relatively low cost and its minimal installation

requirements.

Cost Determination and Analysis

 

The results Of this investigation indicate that an
accumulator with the capacity Of 47.5 square feet would
increase the productivity Of the line by eliminating the need
for one’operator at the casepacker. A wider conveyor is
proposed as the best choice Of accumulator. The cost Of such

6 The

an accumulator is approximately $300 per square foot.
installation charge is approximately $1,000. TO be able tO
accommodate both conveyor widths at least 48.4 square feet
must be installed. This results in an overall cost of

'$15,520. The annual cost Of one Operator to the firm is

48

approximately $14,000. Therefore the accumulator could pay

for itself in 1.11 years (see equation 20).

(20)

$15,520 cost Of proposed accumulator = 1.11 years

$14,000 (cost OfTOperator to firm/year)
Conclusion and Recommendation
Installation Of this accumulator is recommended because
the use Of accumulation will balance the line with regard to
machine speeds. This will allow the casepacker to run
automatically rather than semi-automatically as it is
currently doing. With the casepacker running automatically,
the need for one Of the three Operators now stationed at this
point in the line is eliminated, thus increasing productivity

according tO the relationship: produétivity = §iggi $3353??-

 

Since the accumulator is estimated tO save $14,000 per year,
it would pay for itself in 1.11 years while simultaneously
increasing the productivity Of the line by reducing the labor

input and maintaining the same level Of production.

Areas for Further Study

 

The proposed accumulator in this investigation was
chosen by using time study, statistical analysis, and
considering spatial limitations. Computer simulation could be
used tO predict and evaluate the accumulation requirements
of the packaging line. However, sufficient,data must be

collected to provide the computer with the correct inputs.

49

The data collected in this investigation could be used
as a basis for the development of a computer program of
this type. This data would provide a real production

situation on which a computer model could be based.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LINE RELIABILITY CALCULATION

50

APPENDIX A

LINE RELIABILITY CALCULATION

The reliability Of an entire packaging line is
determined by the interaction among individual machines in
the line. The reliability of a machine is a percentage
measurement Of the time a machine is actually Operating
during the time it is supposed to Operate. A mathematical
prOgression can be used to determine overall line efficiency.
It works like this: a line consisting of eight machines
each with an individual reliability rating of 95 percent has
an overall line reliability of 66 percent. (.95 x .95 x .95
x .95 x .95 x .95 x .95 x .95). This means the first machine
will run 95 percent Of the time. The second machine will run
95 percent Of the time it is supplied with input from the
first machine or 90.25 percent (.95 x .95). The third
machine will Operate 95 percent Of the time it is supplied
with input from the second machine or 85.74 percent (.9025.

x .95). This progression continues until the eighth machine
is Operating 66 percent of the time. This calculation
assumes total machine interaction which results in the lowest
reliability rating.

The highest theoretical rating is the reliability Of
the slowest machine in the line. If a line has three

machines with reliabilities of 70, 80, and 90 percent

51

respectively, 70 percent would be the highest
reliability possible for that line, assuming no machine
interaction. Under this assumption the downtime Of the
second two machines would coincide with the time the
first machine is down. Therefore the downtime of the
scond and third machine would be hidden by the downtime
Of the first machine. However, it is possible that the
downtimes Of the second and third machines would not
coincide with the downtime of the first. It is even
possible that the downtime of each machine would occur
at a time when the other two would have been running. In
this case there would be total interaction, and the
efficiency of the line would be .70 x .80 x .90 = .504

or 50.4 percent.

APPENDIX B

CALCULATIONS TO DETERMINE ACCUMULATION REQUIREMENTS:

THE GARVEY CORPORATION

Page 1

 
   

0030034770”

7h: Wars dmm'v

- ACCUMULATOR XD-57427

 

 

CONVEYOR 13s FPM

] 1 .

—-i—a>7 T t —-%

. r1 _ .
J - . ‘ /

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/’ _ - j, /
CART ONER \ - CASE PACKER
140/minute ° /, . T60/minute
‘ ACCUMULATOR -

v

PRODUCT SIZE: LENGTH -.5-3,4.
NIDTH 7-1/4"
HEIGHT 1-113"

ACCUMULATOR TRAY HOLDS 6 PRODUCTS = 34-1/2“ LONG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRODUCT ACCELERATION TIME: ’/¢{.= .25 V = 135 FPM = 2.25 feet/second
= 27 in/second
O
Vs/vj'nrat F=ma;m=!.'.F=y_a-'-a=F;
' 9 9 - N . _
' 8 .8 i. .0 2
..t % 2.23 {rigtézzgggg E F a)“, . .33M% 8/49 {8 feet/secondj
[ t a .28 second]
FUNCTION TIMEs:{ .
. 34'5" = 1.28 second*
T. PRODUCT TRAVEL T TRAY LENGTH ‘27“73Econds
./ 2. PUSH PRODUCT TIME 7 .5 second
V/a. PUSHER RETRACT TIME . .4 second
“ 4. TRAY INDEX TIME . 1 second
5. PRODUCT ACCELERATE FROM REST TIME = .28

* IGNORES DISTANCE TRAVELED DURING ACCELERATION

53
— ACCUMULATDR XD-57427

 

TLZCDEFRCZGh4ZZEZO’
fl» Warns-www—

ACCUMULATE MODE CYCLE CHART:
T40 CTN/MIN = 2.57 SEC/6 CTN TRAY .
FUNCTION 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 SEC

 

 

 

I. 1 4 ------ 1.28 -------- O 1
2. . r . . J 4- 0.5 -¢
3. ' I .- 0.4 a ]

 

 

5' I 2.45 SEC . i

4 ---------------- §--------------------------: --------- a
(2.46? 2.57 0K)

OISPENSE MODE CYCLE CHART:
‘ 150 CTN/MIN . 2.25 SEC/6 CTN TRAY

 

 

 

FUNCTION 0 .5 1.0 1.5 u ' '2;0 2.5 SEC
1. l e --------- 1.28 ----------- 3]
2. I 4- .5 -4 l —T

 

( ........................ g:9§-§§§ .............. 9

(2.06 < 2.25 0K)

206 SEC/6 CTN TRAY 8 175 CTN/MIN

@5‘
Blue Anchor, New Jersey 08037 USA 0 509-551-2450 0 TWX 510-684-6814 ‘

 

Page 3
.I‘----..._.b.. . . 54
cm 534770” B

demW~

    

— ACCUMULATOR XD-S7427

RATE OF BACK UP CALCULATION

Vc (Vp in.— Up out) 19

.Vb a

 

U; 7(Np in 2 Vp out) 1

1354140 9 0) .Saiyé‘

203 75 37 i
. . m [1.
135 f (140 ". 0) .58' .

IQI§WA\>Q%\SB%= 3.4 ghee

RATE OF BACK UP 0 135 ft/m‘ln CHAIN SPEED HITH 140 PRODUCTS (.58 ft long)
ENTERING AND NO PRODUCT EXITINC a 3.4 prod/sec '

 

      

_ p55

CORPOMflOIV ' .. .. ;.-
numagiuma:araeuuanaamqnxsw

CALCULATION FOR ON LINE ACCUMULATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vb = SPEED OF" BACK UP (feet/minute)
vc = CONVEYOR SPEED (feet/minute)
VP in = RATE OF PRODUCT ENTERING SYSTEM (product/minute)
Vp out = RATE OF PRODUCT EXITING SYSTEM (product/minute)
T = PRODUCT LENGTH -- (feet) .‘
T 8 TIME OF BACK UP (minute)
L = LENGTH OF BACK UP ‘ (feet)
SPEED OF BACK UP Vb (feet/minute)
._ "'1‘ 39/
A AV: (Vp Tn Vp oOt) T . ‘4
vb. J
Vc - (Vp 1n - Vp out) 1
LENGTH OF BACK UP 'L (feet)
L - Vb x T '
TIME OF BACK UP T (minute)
L
T”;—
Vb

 

 

 

Blue Anchor. New Jersey 08037 USA 0 609-561-2450 a TWX 510-684-6814

APPENDIX C

FORMULA TO DETERMINE OPTIMAL CONVEYOR WIDTHS

FOR ROUND OBJECTS

56

APPENDIX C

FORMULA TO DETERMINE OPTIMAL CONVEYOR WIDTH
FOR ROUND OBJECTS

Ideal spacing of bottles on a conveyor can provide
smooth bottle flow. This is achieved through optimal
conveyor width and low speed mass flow of the objects.
The benefits of this type of system include low noise
levels, energy efficiency, minimal guide rail pressure,
less bottle to bottle abrasion, and allows for in-line
accumulation. A formula can be used to determine this

8

optimal width. The object is to form equilateral

triangles of three bottles each and to continually repeat

this pattern (Figure 6).

I

‘ Guiderail

 

Figure 6. Diagram illustrating the equilateral triangle
pattern of Round Objects on a Conveyor.

SOURCE: Rutherford Cooper, "Determining Guide Rail
Spacing for Conveying Round Objects," Packaging Technology
10 (August 1980): 23-23.

 

57

To achieve this pattern the following equation is used:

(N-l) x D x sin 60° + D

2}
II

Where: W Optimal conveyor width

N = Number of round objects (bottles) in a
60 row

D = Diameter of the conveyed object

sin 60° = .866

A 600 angle is formed by the guide rail and an imaginary

line drawn across the conveyor (Figure 7).

2
Ideal
s-Cafidenfll
Spacing
T

 
  
 

 

Figure 7. Diagram Illustrating the Optimal Conveyor Width
for Round Objects.

SOURCE: Rutherford Cooper, "Determining Guide Rail
Spacing for Conveying Round Objects," Packaging Technology
10 (August 1980) 22-23.
This equation provides for straight rows of bottles at a 600
angle to the guide rail. The number of bottles that fit in
the 600 row is N. The 600 angle will preserve the basic

pattern of three bottle‘ equilateral triangles by allowing

them to form larger equilateral triangles (Figure 6).

58

For example, in the preceding diagram (Figure 7) the
number of bottles that fit in the 600 row or N is 5.
If the bottle diameter is 2 inches the formula can be used

to determine the optimal conveyor width.

w (N-l) x D x sin 60° + D + .15(D)*

W (5-1) x 2" x .866 + 2" + .30"

W = 9.23 inches

* To compensate for variation in bottles diameter fifteen
percent of the diameter is added as a safety factor.

APPENDIX D

MACHINERY INFORMATION

Machine

Uncaser

\t

Washer

(—

Scanner

Q—

Filler/Capper

(.—

Counter

(...

Dater

l

Casepacker

59

APPENDIX D

MACHINERY INFORMATION

Make'and'Model‘Number

Meyer HD-V
88-2055

Dostal and Lowey
PEP D 12W
1283

Meyer
Mark IV
D 79-1528

Meyer
HP 2917
34-8

Durant
6-HF-4l-R-CL
173

Ultra-Mark

Lodge and Shiply
Climax

DP3-l

5014

APPENDIX E

PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR BOTTLING OPERATION

SUMMARY

A )yzuuou

Tau! Details
Total Dunne.
Tau] Tint

 

DETAIL DESCRIPTION (:3)

 

Ol———

“ PROCESS FLOW CHART

105 ..... . R. C 0 C018.

.. .. sco-motoonamnlIm-Io-l-¢I‘

--PackeszaLhmmmlen

16 ounce bottles

om ............................

p". 1-1 2-82

...-..nmomm-unu—m

Subject Chan-d

 

APPENDIX F

PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR THE FORKLIFT OPERATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 he-
0:...—

 

61 [PROCESS FLOW CHAR?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY 22;; W
' ’ ”f“f'.‘i‘.'._.-._".-2
712mm 0 Job .....13:....9..-....99..13
Lot-gee v
immun- C3 F°rk11ft OPGWEPWHQM--
TM Details Subject Chum! .........................J.§...chs-h0.ttles
Total Distance
Tom Tine Dam mhlzafl? Chen-d by w
a . o ..
DETAIL DESCRIPTION (m) [SYMBOL § 2 ‘E 7. - .- NOTES 35 f '3
giifié 305
. Orerator leaves casepacker-min. ,0 O V C]
, walks to forklift truck 0 e v C]
I Gets on forklift truck 0 o v D
: Starts truck and picks up load . 0 V U
, “Takes load to warehouse O O V U
... . Eioads pallet . O V D
:— Drives to storage area for empties O O V C] e l‘
_s __‘Picks up a load of empty bottles . O V U 2 I
. Drives back to packaging line 0 O V D : j
Unloads empties by unease: . o V U - E
H Drives to casepacker O 0 v U
:, Parks forklift truck 0 o v D i
I, Gets off . o v D I
" Walks to casepacker/uncaser/etc. O . v E]
“ Begins to help on the line. 0 o v D
:0 O O V D r
n O O V 0 1|
II 0 O V D !
n O O V B I
n O O V D 2
n O O V D :
a O o v D I
3. O o v D '
:0 O O V D I r
a: O O V D '
. O o v E] w
a; O o v D
:e O O V D
.n O o v C] .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

RESULTS OF TIME STUDIES COMPLETED

ON FORKLIFT OPERATION

62

APPENDIX G
RESULTS OF TIME STUDIES COMPLETED

ON FORKLIFT OPERATION

Table 1. Results of time studies completed on Forklift

 

 

 

Operation.
Date and time of Time
timing . Timing ,Minutes.

January 12, 1982 1 3.23
10:00 - 11:30 A.M. 2 2.87
3 2.83

4 3.08

5 3.78

6 3.08

7 ' 3.47

8 3.58

9 2.83

10 4.48

January 20, 1982 11 2.92
9:30 - 11:00 A.M. 12 2.87
13 3.04

14 3.03

15 2.94

16 3.18

17 4.02

January 28, 1982 18 3.58
9:30 - 11:30 A.M. 19 3.67
20 4.08

21 3.28

22 3.67

23 2.83

24 3.77

25 3.62

26 2.98

27 2.90

28 2.75

29 2.77

30 2.78

31 2.62

32 2.85

'63

Table 1 - Continued

 

 

 

Date and time of Time
timing Timing Minutes

January 28, 1982 33 2.85
12:45 - 2:40 P.M. 34 3.42
35 4.60

36 3.18

37 3.17

38 4.58

39 4.40

40 4.68

41 4.68

42 4.50

February 3, 1982 43 3.87
9:45 - 11:00 A.M. 44 3.93
45 3.47

46 3.27

47 3.18

48 3.83

49 3.83

50 3.17

51 3.62

52 3.02

53 3.35

54 3.50

February 3, 1982 55 2.85
2:30 - 3:30 56 3.32
February 11, 1982 57 3.28
9:30 - 10:45 A.M. 58 3.63
59 4.53

60 4.27

61 4.95

62 3.80

63 3.98

64 3.68

February 11, 1982 65 3.77
1:00 - 3:00 P.M. 66 3.38
67 4.48

68 4.05

69 3.78

70 4.10

71 4.40

72 4.65

73 4.85

74 4.03

.64

Table 1 - Continued

 

 

 

Date and time of Time
timing Timing Minutes

February 11, 1982 75 4.32
1:00 - 3:00 P.M. 76 4.05
77 3.87

78 4.32

79 4.37

80 3.88

81 4.15

82 4.27

83 4.30

84 4.15

February 12, 1982 85 4.50
9:00 - 11:30 A.M. 86 4.47
87 3.78

88 4.60

89 4.93

90 3.98

91 3.83

92 3.87

93 4.00

94 3.50

95 3.87

96 3.65

97 3.88

98 3.90

99 4.33

February 15, 1982 100 3.83
9:00 - 11:30 A.M. - 101 3.66
102 3.77

103 4.71

104 4.93

105 3.78

106 4.08

107 3.88

108 3.68

109 3.77

110 3.65

111 4.15

112 4.67

113 4.11

114 4.75

115 4.05

116 4.45

65

Table 1 - Continued:

 

 

 

Date and time of Time
timing Timing Minutes
February 15, 1982 117 3.61
9:00 - 11:30 A.M. 118 4.73
119 4.01
February 15, 1982 120 3.83
12:45 - 3:00 P.M. 121 4.95
122 4.18
123 4.45
124 4.65
125 4.00
126 4.55
127 3.88
128 4.17
129 4.37
130 4.10
131 3.88
132 3.85
133 3.91
134 4.57
135 3.90
136 3.81
137 3.65
February 16, 1982 138 3.80
1:15 - 3:45 P.M. 139 4.41
140 3.75
141 4.57
142 4.25
143 4.23
144 4.20
145 4.30
146 4.41
147 4.11
148 5.30
149 4.75
150 4.21
151 4.17
152 4.98
153 4.57
154 4.68
155 4.48
156 3.75
157 4.33
158 4.37

159 4.52

66

Table 1 - Continued

 

 

 

 

Date and time of Time
timing Timing Minutes
February 17, 1982 160 3.97
9:45 - 10:15 A.M. 161 3.67
162 4.77

163 4.58

164 4.00

165 4.17

166 3.90

167 3.87

February 17, 1982 168 3.38
1:45 - 3:15 P.M. 169 3.67
170 2.98

171 3.15

172 2.70

173 3.23

174 4.01

175 4.63

176 4.68

177 3.68

178 3.95

179 4.07

February 18, 1982 180 3.67
9:30 - 11:30 A.M. 181 3.98
182 4.10

183 4.58

184 4.97

185 4.08

186 4.42

187 4.10

188 3.72

189 3.77

190 4.48

191 3.87

192 4.27

193 4.22

194 4.35

195 . 4.12

196 4.40

197 3.77

198 3.60

199 3.73

200 4.38

Mean 3.924

Standard Deviation .568

APPENDIX H

FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF DOWNTIME OF THE FILLER

A57
APPENDIX H

DOWNTIME FREQUENCY SUMMARY

Table 2 - Frequency of Filler Downtime

 

 

 

Date and time of Number of Frequency
downtime downtimes downtimes/minute

January 28, 1982 33 .12
9:30 - 2:40

February 3, 1982 14 .19
9:45 - 11:00
.February 11, 1982 12 .16
9:30 - 10:45

February 11, 1982

1:00 - 3:00 29 .24
February 12, 1982 12 .11
7:45 - 9:30

February 15, 1982 22 .24
9:00 - 11:30

February 15, 1982 31 .23
12:45 - 3:00

February 16, 1982 21 .18
9:30 - 11:30

February 17, 1982 8 .11
1:45 - 3:00

TOTAL 182 MEAN .18

(10.8/hour)

68

APPENDIX H
DOWNTIME FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF THE

FILLER INDIVIDUAL INCIDENTS

Table 3 - Duration of Filler downtime

 

 

Date and time of Time filler Duration of Downtime
downtime was down Seconds

 

January 28, 1982 1 5
9:30 - 2:40 2 2
3 5
4 180
5 155
6 10
7 10
8 16
9 27
10 7
11 22
12 2
13 44
14 59
15 9
16 8
17 20
18 3
19 9
20 32
21 23
22 2
23 27
24 26
25 97
26 20
27 3
28 5
29 9O
30 10
31 67
32 7

Table 3 - Continued

69

 

 

Date and time of

Time filler

Duration of downtime

 

downtime was down Seconds
February 3, 1982 1 9
9:45 - 11:00 A.M. 2 61
3 44

4 10

5 43

6 2

7 64

8 5

9 53

10 9

11 170

12 34

13 58

14 2

February 11, 1982 1 30
9:30 - 10:45 A.M. 2 83
3 20

4 10

5 5

6 11

7 7

8 13

9 45

10 3

11 14

12 124

February 11, 1982 1 6
1:00 - 3:00 P.M. 2 95
3 10

4 23

5 2

6 13

7 18

8 56

9 9O

10 22

11 15

12 2

13 50

14 45

15 9

16 10

17 13

18 7

19 25

70

Table 3 - Continued

 

 

 

Date and time of Time filler Duration of Downtime
downtime was down Seconds

February 11, 1982 20 14
1:00 - 3:00 P.M. 21 33
22 2

23 24

24 7

25 58

26 67

27 11

28 15

29 ' 50

February 12, 1982 1 5
7:45 - 9:30 P.M. 2 15
3 4

4 2

5 10

6 7O

7 4

8 9

9 5

10 9

11 4

12 95

February 15, 1982 l 15
9:00 - 11:30 A.M. 2 46
3 5

4 5

5 3

6 2

7 36

8 183

9 25

10 9

11 3

12 10

13 13

14 63

15 2

16 2

17 120

18 8

19 2

20 9

21 6

71-

Table 3 - Continued

 

 

 

Date and time of Time filler Duration of downtime
downtime was down Seconds

February 15, 1982 1 64
12:45 - 3:00 P.M. 2 5
3 75

4 5

5 10

6 68

7 19

8 4

9 52

10 37

11 6

12 123

13 55

14 43

15 11

16 130

17 9

18 5

19 20

20 10

21 68

22 73

23 23

24 14

25 2

26 7

27 56

28 3

29 4

30 10

31 17

February 16, 1982 1 2
9:30 - 11:30 A.M. 2 2
3 15

4 37

5 55

6 5

7 30

8 32

9 39

10 51

11 18

12 28

13 52

14 7

15 5

72

Table 3 - Continued

 

 

 

Date and time of Time filler Duration of downtime
downtime was down Seconds

February 16, 1982 16 5
9:30 - 11:30 A.M. 17 22
18 39

19 76

20 2

21 39

February 17, 1982 1 34
1:45 - 3:00 P.M. 2 53
3 8

4 9

5 95

6 21

7 14

8 58

 

MEAN DURATION 29-7 seconds

REFERENCES

10.

11.

73
REFERENCES

Beckman, Harold, and Simms, William C., and Corvington,
Jean. Glossary of Packaging Terms. New York:
The Packaging Institute, 1979.

 

Bishop, Bruce. General Foods Corporation, Battle Creek,
Michigan. Interview, 18 December 1981.

Briston, J. "Improving the Effectiveness of Packaging
Machinery." Paper presented at the Symposium of
Training Developments, 'Packaging Performance':
Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board and
Chemical and Allied Products Industry Training
Board in cooperation with Pira, 1976.

Buckminster, William. "Select Accumulators for a Line's
Exact Needs." Package Engineering 25 (April 1980):
60-610

 

Buckminster, William. "Accumulating." The Packaging
Encyclopedia, Chicago: Cahners Publishing Company,
I981.

 

Cobert, William. Garvey Corporation, Blue Anchor, New
Jersey. Interview, 19 November 1981, 8 December
1981, and 22 February 1982.

Connell, A. E. "Production Efficiency and Performance of
Packaging Machinery." Pira Reference Sheet 430,
Surrey, England, December 1976.

Cooper, Rutherford. "Determining Guide Rail Spacing
for Conveying Round Objects." Packaging Technology
10 (August 1980): 22-23. '

Domke, K. "Limits of the WOrking Speed of Packaging
Equipment." Verpack-Rdsch 24 (June 1973): 552-562.

 

Gill, JOhn. Design and Analysis of Experiments in the
Animal and Medical Sciencesh vol. 1 and 3.
Ames Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1978.

 

 

Gorton, D. and Smith, S. "Philosophy and Concept of
Production Lines to Provide Maximum Throughput into
the Warehouse," Paper presented at the Packfurst
Conference at ScanPack '76, Gothenburg, Sweden,
October 1976.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

74

Harris, Gene. Carling Brewery, Frankenmuth, Michigan.
Interview, 15 December 1981.

Hine, Dennis J. "How Are We Doing? - Measuring
Machine Efficiency." Paper presented at the
Packaging Workshop Conference, Wembly, England,
8 November 1979.

Hine, Dennis J. "The Interaction Between Packaging
Materials and Machines." Paper presented at the
Institute of Packaging's Residential Education
Course, United Kingdom, 10-15 February, 1980.

"Improving Filling Line Efficiency." Financial Times,
1 September 1976, p. 10.

Introductory User's Manual for GALS. Chicago, IIT
Research Institute, (19827.

 

Kealey, J.P. "Productivity: How Do We Improve It
for the 80's?" Aerosal Age 26 (January 1981):
18-23 0

 

"King-Size Conveyors Line 'Traffic Cops' Keep Cans
Moving." Package Engineering 24 (June 1979): 47-49.

"Kronenbourg Boost Efficiency at 1500 BPM." U. S.
Packaging Forum No. 21 (October 1977): 1I-I2.

 

"Line's Accumulation Points Assure Non-stop Output at
Top Speeds." Package Engineering 24 (August 1979):
50-53.

 

Macartney, Carlton. Merck, Sharp, and Dohme, Rahway,
New Jersey. Interview, 22 December 1981.

Machlowitz, Marilyn. "Productivity: The New Buzz
Word in Business." Working Woman, December, 1980:
44

 

Muramatsu, Tsuyoshi. "Simulation of the Packaging
Process for a Cigarette Line." Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1975.

"Pabst Brewing Company, P.L.U.M. System." Modern
Brewery Age 31 (April 21, 1980).

 

Paine, Frank A. Consultant in Packaging Technology
and Management, Surrey England. Interview,
18 December 1981.

Paine, Frank A. "Packaging Criteria for the Next
Decade." Packaging Today 1 (November 1979):
28-30

 

27.

28.

29.

300

31.

32.

33.

75

"Planned Productivity Keys Machinery Developments
for the 80's." Package_Engineering 24
(December 1979): 39-45

Sargent, C. Robert. Merck, Sharp and Dohme. Rayway,
New Jersey. Interview, 17 December 1981.

Serchuk, A. "Machinery: Should you Buy The Package?"
Modern Packaging 51 (May 1978): 25-29.

 

Stoneman, James Randolph. "A Computer Simulation of
a Packaging Line." Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1975.

"Stopping a Line for Frequent Changes Without
Interrupting a Non-stop Flow of Product."
Package Engineering 23 (May 1978): 50-53

 

Tersine, Richard J. Production/Operations Management:
Concepts, Structure, and Analysis. New York:
North Holiand, 1980.

Van Rootselaar, R. H. "High Speed Packaging - a
Planned Approach." Canadian Packaging 29
(June 1976): 34-35.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
IllIlllmlHIWI“WNW"”WINIIWIIHWIWI
31293103825950