Child Proof Child Proof Dispensing ClosureDispensing Closure
Senior Design – Final ReviewSenior Design – Final Review
Team 8: Ken Cardillo, Patrice Team 8: Ken Cardillo, Patrice HughesHughes
Ben Raab, Mike WashkoBen Raab, Mike Washko
Company Sponsor: Berry PlasticsCompany Sponsor: Berry PlasticsTeam Advisor: Prof. KeefeTeam Advisor: Prof. Keefe
Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview
Project GoalProject Goal Wants/Constraints and SpecificationsWants/Constraints and Specifications Concept Development and SelectionConcept Development and Selection Testing and AnalysisTesting and Analysis Concept IterationsConcept Iterations Further Testing and AnalysisFurther Testing and Analysis Hand-off plan to sponsorHand-off plan to sponsor
Key Key CustomersCustomers
John Tauber: John Tauber: Product Development and Engr. – Berry Plastics
Frank Cassidy: Frank Cassidy: Market Manager – Berry Plastics
Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson Company Company
Various ConsumersVarious Consumers
Innovative cap addition to Innovative cap addition to current product line current product line
Johnson & Johnson is Johnson & Johnson is interested as large contract interested as large contract customercustomer
Reduced Manufacturing Reduced Manufacturing CostsCosts– One piece designOne piece design
Increased ProfitsIncreased Profits
Benefits to Benefits to Berry Berry Plastics Plastics
Project GoalProject Goal
……to conceive, develop, and refine to conceive, develop, and refine concepts into a prototype for a concepts into a prototype for a child resistant dispensing closure child resistant dispensing closure that meets the needs of Berry that meets the needs of Berry Plastics in order to advance to the Plastics in order to advance to the final stages of development.final stages of development.
Critical IssuesCritical Issues
Defining “Child-Defining “Child-Resistant”Resistant”– Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety (CPSC) TestingSafety (CPSC) Testing– Incorporating this Incorporating this
into the designinto the design Prototype vs. End Prototype vs. End
ProductProduct Designing a cap Designing a cap
physically similar to the physically similar to the existing existing
Johnson & Johnson CapJohnson & Johnson Cap Threading issueThreading issue
Prioritized WantsPrioritized Wants
One Piece Assembled
Multi Operation Opening
Ease of Use
Asthetically Pleasing
Low cost
Able to be manufacturedusing polypropylene
ConstraintsConstraints
Able to be injection moldedAble to be injection molded
Must not infringe on existing Must not infringe on existing patentspatents
Must adapt to Johnson & JohnsonMust adapt to Johnson & Johnson
Baby Oil product lineBaby Oil product line
Benchmarking ResearchBenchmarking Research
Existing caps on the Existing caps on the marketmarket
Berry Plastic’s Berry Plastic’s current “Child current “Child Resistant” Resistant” dispensing dispensing enclosureenclosure
Patent researchPatent research
Engineering SpecificationsEngineering Specifications
Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid: >5Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid: >5
Number of pieces assembledNumber of pieces assembled: 1: 1
Number of independent operations needed to openNumber of independent operations needed to open: : 22
Estimated price due to volume of plasticEstimated price due to volume of plastic: <$.05: <$.05
Max force per operationMax force per operation: 4 lbs: 4 lbs
Scaled ranking of difficulty to be injection moldedScaled ranking of difficulty to be injection molded:: 0- 0-33
Concept DevelopmentConcept Development
Concepts:Concepts: Latch MechanismLatch Mechanism
– On baseOn base– On flip-topOn flip-top– On flip-top with action On flip-top with action
on base: on base:
Rotating Cap DesignRotating Cap Design
Squeeze and Twist DesignSqueeze and Twist Design
Concept SelectionConcept Selection
Influencing factorsInfluencing factors– Technical feasibility Technical feasibility – Conference calls with Conference calls with
John Tauber John Tauber – Discussions with Prof. Discussions with Prof.
KeefeKeefe– UDesign spreadsheetsUDesign spreadsheets
Concept SelectionConcept Selection Hook Mechanism on Base of Hook Mechanism on Base of Dispenser Dispenser
Reasons for choiceReasons for choice– Very similar in look to Very similar in look to
old J&J Lidold J&J Lid– Tabs are more Tabs are more
ergonomicergonomic– Easier to Injection MoldEasier to Injection Mold– Support from Support from
Marketing and Marketing and Engineering SponsorsEngineering Sponsors
Concept SpecificsConcept Specifics
Applied Force
Snap Fit Plug
Base Hook
Flip-topHook
Concept DevelopmentConcept Development
Tab deflection testing Tab deflection testing
Finite Element AnalysisFinite Element Analysis
Stereolithography Stereolithography prototypesprototypes
Feasibility TestingFeasibility Testing
Tab Deflection TestingTab Deflection Testing
– Sample: Existing Polypropylene CapSample: Existing Polypropylene Cap– Testing procedure: Instron machineTesting procedure: Instron machine
Force vs. Deflection for varying tab Force vs. Deflection for varying tab sizessizes
Feasibility TestingFeasibility Testing
Feasibility TestingFeasibility Testing
Pro/E Finite Element Pro/E Finite Element Analysis of TabAnalysis of Tab
Purpose:- Deflection vs. Force- Further validate physical tab deflection testing
Results:- Acceptable deflection for given force range
Stereolithography ModelStereolithography Model
Purpose: to test Purpose: to test latch mechanismlatch mechanism
Material: SLA resinMaterial: SLA resin 3D laser printing3D laser printing Issue: Dimensional Issue: Dimensional
inaccuracyinaccuracy Fueled new Fueled new
directiondirection
Problem:Problem:
Molding IssuesMolding Issues Appearance IssuesAppearance Issues
Thick Cuts vs. Thin Cuts
Thick cuts: good for molding, bad for marketing
Thin Cuts: bad for molding, good for marketing
Solution:Solution:
Deflecting wallDeflecting wall– Sponsor satisfactionSponsor satisfaction– Best fit for wants and design specificationsBest fit for wants and design specifications
• 1 piece assembly
• Straight pull injection mold
• Exterior identical to J & J cap
• 2 independent motions to open
• Easy to use
How It WorksHow It Works
DeflectionCavity
Snap-fitPlug
Flip-topHook
AppliedForce
2-4 lbs
Base Hook
Flip-top
Base
Further IterationsFurther Iterations
Physical ModelsPhysical Models– Combination of Combination of
machined machined polypropylene and polypropylene and modified existing modified existing Berry Plastics capsBerry Plastics caps
– Two iterationsTwo iterations– Helped to further Helped to further
validate designvalidate design FEA FEA
Final IterationFinal Iteration
Cast Urethane Cast Urethane ModelModel– Casting processCasting process– Material propertiesMaterial properties– Application for proof Application for proof
of conceptof concept
CPSC TestingCPSC Testing
Consumer Product Safety Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission test specifics :test specifics :– Age: 42-51 monthsAge: 42-51 months– Each child given 5 minutes to open Each child given 5 minutes to open
packagepackage– After 5 minutes tester demonstrates After 5 minutes tester demonstrates
how to open packagehow to open package– Each child given another 5 minutes to Each child given another 5 minutes to
open packageopen package
Mock CPSC TestingMock CPSC Testing
Purpose: To validate design through Purpose: To validate design through child testingchild testing
Mock test procedureMock test procedure– Child given chance to openChild given chance to open– Child shown how to open capChild shown how to open cap– Child given additional chance to openChild given additional chance to open
Performed utilizing U of D’s Early Performed utilizing U of D’s Early Childhood Development CenterChildhood Development Center– 4 -5 year old children4 -5 year old children
Mock CPSC TestingMock CPSC Testing
Failure
Test Set-up:
•Only 2 children tested•Material failure, not design failure
RecommendationsRecommendations
Further DevelopmentFurther Development– Testing subjects of all ages (focus Testing subjects of all ages (focus
groups)groups)– Manufacture using PolypropyleneManufacture using Polypropylene
Design modificationsDesign modifications– Possibly increase the undercutPossibly increase the undercut– Cap base flush with the lidCap base flush with the lid
Hand-off Plan to SponsorHand-off Plan to Sponsor
Final memoFinal memo AutoCAD drawing filesAutoCAD drawing files Testing procedures and resultsTesting procedures and results Surviving prototypesSurviving prototypes Recommendations for further Recommendations for further
developmentdevelopment
Cost AnalysisCost Analysis
Theoretical Engineering CostTheoretical Engineering Cost– $50 an Hour$50 an Hour– 20 Hours a Week20 Hours a Week– $56,000 total$56,000 total
Actual Costs to Berry PlasticsActual Costs to Berry Plastics– 3 Sets of Prototypes3 Sets of Prototypes– $1,325 Total$1,325 Total
Actual Costs to University of DelawareActual Costs to University of Delaware– $500 for Machine Shop Use (25 hrs. @ $500 for Machine Shop Use (25 hrs. @
$20/hr.)$20/hr.)
RecapRecap
Final designFinal design Testing MethodsTesting Methods
– InstronInstron– Mock CPSC Mock CPSC
Design ValidationDesign Validation– Machined Machined
PrototypesPrototypes–
StereolithographyStereolithography RecommendationsRecommendations
Questions?Questions?
Extra SlidesExtra Slides
Estimated Projected CostEstimated Projected Cost
Projected Task Cost Component Resource
Time (Sponsor) hrs.
Time (UD) hrs.
Unit Cost ($/hr.)
Total Cost ($)
Sponsor Cost ($)
UD Cost ($)
Design Prototypes
Develop concepts Develop concepts Engr. Design Team 8 0 160 50 8000 0 0
Build Prototypes
Stereolithographies made by ProtoCAM Materials/Fabrication ProtoCAM 0 480 50 24000 1500 100
Test Prototypes
Final concept testing/Proof of concept Engr. Design Team 8 0 480 50 24000 0 100
TOTAL 0 1120 56000 1500 200
Sectioned Views of Final Sectioned Views of Final ConceptConcept
Deflection Cavity
Ribbing
Snap Fit Plug Undercut
Proof of Concept PlanProof of Concept Plan
Marketing vs. engineering approachMarketing vs. engineering approach Stereolithography prototypes by ProtoCAMStereolithography prototypes by ProtoCAM Three iterations of prototypesThree iterations of prototypes Use surveys to receive feedbackUse surveys to receive feedback Test group of 20 peopleTest group of 20 people
– Wide range of peopleWide range of people– At least three senior citizens At least three senior citizens – At least one child for first iterationAt least one child for first iteration– At least five children for second and third iterationAt least five children for second and third iteration