P20620: WindowSkin Primary Packaging

Integrated System Build & Test

Table of Contents

This page shows the results of our testing, which was cut short due to Covid.

Team Vision for Integrated System Build & Test Phase

Summarize: https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/Phase%207%20Team%20Vision.jpeg

Test Results Summary

Testing plans for this phase can be found here: Testing Plans

A detailed summary of our testing process is listed below with accompanying pictures:

Size 3 Package Weight: 30.425 lbs

Testing was mix of ISTA 3A and 3E

Drop Test (ISTA 3A - Single Parcel):

For parcels under 70 lbs, 18” height drop

Dropped in 9 orientations on corners and edges

One final drop done from 36” on flat bottom face

Did not bother doing 18” flat drop bc 36” flat drop was worst case https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/Worst%20Case%20Scenario%20Drop%20Test.jpg

When dropped on edge or corner opposing WindowSkin placement, WindowSkins remained in original corner proving that slight compression of seal does keep the Skins in place/prevent sliding https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/IMG_20200305_115203008.jpg Corners drops worse than edge drops https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/Corner%20Defect.jpg Seals in corner hit velcro tabs when corner dropped and get slightly pinched https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/Windowskin%20Defect.jpg 36” flat drop was worst case/most damaging

Damaged seals were able to be hand fixed but slightly crinkled after being fixed

At end of testing most seals had at least 2 crinkles

2 skins had 0 crinkles

2 skins had 1 crinkle

3 skins had 2 crinkles

2 skins had 3 crinkles

1 skin had 4 crinkles

One seal was completely unrolled on one end after 36” drop but could also be fixed by hand

Jamestown recommends B flutes for future use for better perforations B flutes are thicker and would be better for drop and compression testing

Testing C flutes was worst case test

B flute is also more expensive

Pros of B flute: Could improve perforation situation

Cons of B flute: Though it it stronger, testing went fine so cost increase of switching to B probably isn’t worth it

Impact Test (Not relevant for single parcel)

Is a 3E test meant for palletized assemblies

Design for WindowSkin shippers has underhang so pallet would take brunt of force from impact

Shipper would be destroyed if done without pallet

Compression Test (3E standard, 3A testing usually does not include compression): https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/IMG_20200305_122014200.jpg ISTA 3E Apply and Release dimension calculator used to determine weight to apply to shipper

170lbs applied

Test goes until 170lbs of compression is reached or until 1” of deflection Package did not deflect

Calculates weight of box from dimensions and applies extra weight as a factor of safety

For reference a small C flute box can hold about 500 lbs

Jamestown may be able to provide compression info on B flutes should we want it

Results from compression test shown below: https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Photo%20Gallery/Compression%20Test%20Data.PNG

Vibe Test (3E standard):

WindowSkin shippers to be shipped on pallet so test should represent palletized assemblies

Over sized box would be on 48”x40” pallet and use tall skinny metal holders to keep it from sliding around

Simulated weight of additional box to be added

Due to RIT shutdown from Corona-virus this test was unable to be performed

Results from Testing:

Based on the limited results we received during our testing phase, we found that our design holds up well to the intended use.

The only change that was made to the design involved decreasing the number of finger holes from two to one in the smallest size of divider. It also included moving the finger holes closer together in all other larger sizes. This was based on the time study results as it was found that occasionally we would accidentally tape over the finger holes during the packaging process.

The drop test and compression test helped prove that the structural integrity and sturdiness of our design would be well fit for any normal environment that it would be put in. We wish that we could have performed the vibration test in order to see how the design would have held up, but did not have any major concerns about the results of that test.

We have complete confidence that our design is fit enough to work well and as intended for WexEnergy. We have no reservations about the size of the divider or the WindowSkin and feel that regardless of sizes, the design will work as intended.

Risk and Problem Tracking

During this phase, seven new risks were added to the risk table, older risks were reduced given changes made during this phase, and all of them were reflected in the risk graphs. The new risks are as follows:

The majority of these new risks dealt with problems that may have arose with the packaging science testing facilities. These were mostly reduced to zero as we were able to perform the necessary tests, excluding the vibration test. The final risk deals with the more recent changes of working on the class remotely and how everyone is required to have a reliable internet connection.

For any supplementary information on the risks please see the associated live document with all risk data.


Functional Demo Materials

Presentation PDF https://edge.rit.edu/edge/P20620/public/Phase%207%20Presentation.pdf

Presentation PowerPoint (This file has notes that indicate what we would speak on in an in person presentation.) Phase 7 Presentation.pptx

Plans for next phase


Home | Planning & Execution | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation