Berry PlasticsBerry PlasticsLiner-less Liner-less

Detergent CapDetergent CapTeam 7Team 7

Tom PepeRoss RozanskyDale HeintzelmanCherish WilfordGlenn Catlin

Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe

Sponsor Contact: John Tauber

About Berry PlasticsAbout Berry Plastics

Leading manufacturer of injection Leading manufacturer of injection molded packaging in the U.S.molded packaging in the U.S.

Currently working on new product Currently working on new product development around liner-less development around liner-less closuresclosures

With the partnership of UD and our With the partnership of UD and our sponsor, John Tauber, a new liner-sponsor, John Tauber, a new liner-less detergent cap will be designedless detergent cap will be designed

Problem DefinitionProblem Definition The current cost of The current cost of

polypropylene is rising polypropylene is rising causing the cap liners to causing the cap liners to become more and more become more and more expensiveexpensive

The cost of the liner is now The cost of the liner is now close to 1/3close to 1/3rdrd of the total of the total cost to make the capcost to make the cap

A new design is needed to A new design is needed to eliminate the need for a eliminate the need for a linerliner

The design should be as The design should be as effective and inexpensive as effective and inexpensive as possible possible

Liner

Affected CustomersAffected Customers

Liquid detergent companies, i.e. CloroxLiquid detergent companies, i.e. Clorox

Retail stores, i.e. WalmartRetail stores, i.e. Walmart

General publicGeneral public ElderlyElderly Middle agedMiddle aged TeenagersTeenagers

Problem SpecificsProblem Specifics

WantsWants Low CostLow Cost Maximum Seal Maximum Seal

TimeTime Aesthetically Aesthetically

PleasingPleasing Easy to GripEasy to Grip Easy to CloseEasy to Close Simple DesignSimple Design

ConstraintsConstraints Liner-less DesignLiner-less Design Injection MoldedInjection Molded One PieceOne Piece Applied TorqueApplied Torque

Want WeightsWant Weights

44.9

21.6

17.7

6.95.3 3.6

low cost pass 24 hour test aesthetics

easy to grip low torque simplest design

Gap Size – Area between cap and Gap Size – Area between cap and bottle does bottle does not change from not change from current designcurrent design

Cost - < $60 per 1000 capsCost - < $60 per 1000 caps Appendage Thickness – NoneAppendage Thickness – None Time Until Leak – 1 hr < t < 24hrTime Until Leak – 1 hr < t < 24hr Reproducibility of Results - > 90%Reproducibility of Results - > 90% Loss of Fluid – 0 mLLoss of Fluid – 0 mL Torque Required – Torque Required – ττ = 35 in-lbs = 35 in-lbs

Metrics and Target Metrics and Target ValuesValues

Metric WeightsMetric Weights

26

20

18

10

9

88

Gap Size Cost Appendage thickness

Time until leak Reproducability of results Loss of fluid

Torque

Benchmark ConceptsBenchmark Concepts

Solo CapSolo Cap Type of sealType of seal

Fin seal with bottleFin seal with bottle

XTRA CapXTRA Cap Type of sealType of seal

Wedge seal to spout Wedge seal to spout

componentcomponent Wedge

Fin

Benchmark Concepts Benchmark Concepts cont.cont.

All CapAll Cap Type of sealType of seal

Cap lays flat against Cap lays flat against bottle land; tight bottle land; tight tolerancetolerance

Febreze CapFebreze Cap Type of sealType of seal

Wedge seal to bottleWedge seal to bottle

spikespike

Wedge

Benchmark Cap Leak Benchmark Cap Leak TestingTesting

To determine which concepts work To determine which concepts work better than othersbetter than others

Tested with actual product Tested with actual product (detergent) inside(detergent) inside

Caps tightened to 35 in-lbsCaps tightened to 35 in-lbs Bottles lay flat on their side and Bottles lay flat on their side and

checked periodically for leakagechecked periodically for leakage Each benchmark tested twiceEach benchmark tested twice

Leak Test Results From Leak Test Results From Benchmark CapsBenchmark Caps

CapCapViscosity Viscosity

(Pa-s)(Pa-s)Time until leak Time until leak

(hrs)(hrs)

All All 0.180.18 --

XTRAXTRA 0.050.05 --

SoloSolo 0.120.12 2 to 32 to 3

FebrezFebrezee   < XTRA< XTRA 33

All- Tied for best-Excellent tolerance

XTRA- Tied for best-Strong seal to deformable spout component

Febreze- Tied for worst-Flimsy spike design

Solo- Tied for worst-Fin offered weak seal with bottle

Our ConceptsOur ConceptsTwo Vertical FinsTwo Vertical Fins

Fray out to touch walls Fray out to touch walls when screwed downwhen screwed down

Force from cap walls Force from cap walls and plastic fin resilience and plastic fin resilience create seal with both create seal with both bottle and spoutbottle and spout

ProblemProblem- Space between - Space between outside fins and cap outside fins and cap interior is too thininterior is too thin

Mold has a high Mold has a high probability to break over probability to break over time from stresstime from stress

Our Concepts Cont.Our Concepts Cont.

Flat ContactFlat Contact Proven easy and Proven easy and

successfulsuccessful With proper tolerance With proper tolerance

cap sits flush on bottle cap sits flush on bottle top, creating a tight sealtop, creating a tight seal

ProblemProblem- Tolerance - Tolerance would have to be would have to be incredibleincredible

Top of bottle would Top of bottle would have to be consistently have to be consistently manufactured manufactured completely flatcompletely flat

Our Concepts Cont.Our Concepts Cont.

Internal WedgeInternal Wedge Cap tightens to inside Cap tightens to inside

wall of spout while wall of spout while screwing downscrewing down

Allows more surface Allows more surface contactcontact

Allows least amount of Allows least amount of liquid to directly reach liquid to directly reach the sealthe seal

Fluid pushes cap Fluid pushes cap against bottle against bottle naturallynaturally

Primary Cap DesignPrimary Cap DesignMain Metrics

Metric #1- Gap Size (26%)

•Tight fit

Metric #3- Appendage Thickness (18%)

•No increases in thickness measured from the base. i.e.- injection moldable

Prototype TestingPrototype Testing Same testing procedure as before Same testing procedure as before

with waterwith water No seal lasted 1 hr.No seal lasted 1 hr.

WedgeNotch

Change in Problem Change in Problem ScopeScope

The seal may not be achievable if the The seal may not be achievable if the bottle was manufactured incorrectlybottle was manufactured incorrectly

Changing a spec on the bottle itself Changing a spec on the bottle itself may be a cheaper and simpler may be a cheaper and simpler solution than designing a new capsolution than designing a new cap

Need to show evidence of the bottle Need to show evidence of the bottle being direct cause of failure before being direct cause of failure before changing specs changing specs

Bottle TestingBottle Testing

Tests of current bottles and liner-Tests of current bottles and liner-less caps from Berry Plasticsless caps from Berry Plastics

16 different bottles/16 different caps 16 different bottles/16 different caps for a total of 256 testsfor a total of 256 tests

Bottles lay flat on Bottles lay flat on

their sides with papertheir sides with paper

towel underneath to towel underneath to

observe leakageobserve leakage

Bottle Testing cont.Bottle Testing cont. Bottles filled with Bottles filled with

water water

for most extreme for most extreme testingtesting

Caps torqued to 35 Caps torqued to 35 in-lbs in-lbs

using torque meter using torque meter Max time limit of 1 Max time limit of 1

hourhour Results: 48% success Results: 48% success

raterate

Testing ResultsTesting Results Bottles show more Bottles show more

consistencyconsistency

Bottle InvestigationBottle Investigation Possible Causes of Possible Causes of

FailureFailure Bottle land flatnessBottle land flatness Wall thicknessWall thickness Distance from start Distance from start

of thread to bottle of thread to bottle landland

CorrelationsCorrelations

More consistent More consistent wall thickness wall thickness promotes a longer promotes a longer sealseal

Flatter Bottles Flatter Bottles sealed longersealed longer

Flatness vs. Time

y = -3E-06x + 0.022

R2 = 0.2641

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Total Time (min)

Fla

tne

ss

(in

)

Wall Thickness vs. Time

y = -1E-05x + 0.0283

R2 = 0.1832

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

total time (min)

Dif

fere

nce

in W

all T

hic

knes

s (i

n)

Bottle ManufacturerBottle Manufacturer

Reaming process impact: Reaming process impact: Wall thicknessWall thickness FlatnessFlatness Land distance to thread Land distance to thread

New Bottle TestingNew Bottle Testing

Success rate of 94.4%Success rate of 94.4%

Leak InvestigationLeak Investigation

FinGap

No Gap

RecommendationsRecommendations Implement new bottle specs with old cap Implement new bottle specs with old cap

designdesign Wall thickness variability- < 0.020 inchesWall thickness variability- < 0.020 inches Flatness- < 0.010 inchesFlatness- < 0.010 inches End Lip variability- < 0.005 inchesEnd Lip variability- < 0.005 inches Manufacturer limitations?Manufacturer limitations?

Create a new cap designCreate a new cap design Greater wedge angleGreater wedge angle Same fin from old capSame fin from old cap

Do bothDo both

WedgeFin

Questions/Concerns Questions/Concerns

Thank YouThank You