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