Child Proof Dispensing Closure Senior Design – Final Review Team 8: Ken Cardillo, Patrice Hughes Ben Raab, Mike Washko Ben Raab, Mike Washko Company Sponsor: Berry Plastics Team Advisor: Prof. Keefe

Presentation Overview Project Goal Project Goal Wants/Constraints and Specifications Wants/Constraints and Specifications Concept Development and Selection Concept Development and Selection Testing and Analysis Testing and Analysis Concept Iterations Concept Iterations Further Testing and Analysis Further Testing and Analysis Hand-off plan to sponsor Hand-off plan to sponsor

Key Customers John Tauber: John Tauber: Product Development and Engr. – Berry Plastics Frank Cassidy: Frank Cassidy: Market Manager – Berry Plastics Johnson & Johnson Company Johnson & Johnson Company Various Consumers Various Consumers Innovative cap addition to current product line Innovative cap addition to current product line Johnson & Johnson is interested as large contract customer Johnson & Johnson is interested as large contract customer Reduced Manufacturing Costs Reduced Manufacturing Costs –One piece design Increased Profits Increased Profits Benefits to Berry Plastics

Project Goal …to conceive, develop, and refine concepts into a prototype for a child resistant dispensing closure that meets the needs of Berry Plastics in order to advance to the final stages of development.

Critical Issues Defining “Child-Resistant” Defining “Child-Resistant” –Consumer Product Safety (CPSC) Testing Safety (CPSC) Testing –Incorporating this into the design Prototype vs. End Product Prototype vs. End Product Designing a cap physically similar to the existing Designing a cap physically similar to the existing Johnson & Johnson Cap Johnson & Johnson Cap Threading issue Threading issue

Prioritized Wants

Constraints Able to be injection molded Able to be injection molded Must not infringe on existing patents Must not infringe on existing patents Must adapt to Johnson & Johnson Must adapt to Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil product line Baby Oil product line

Benchmarking Research Existing caps on the market Existing caps on the market Berry Plastic’s current “Child Resistant” dispensing enclosure Berry Plastic’s current “Child Resistant” dispensing enclosure Patent research Patent research

Engineering Specifications Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid: >5 Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid: >5 Number of pieces assembled : 1 Number of pieces assembled : 1 Number of independent operations needed to open : 2 Number of independent operations needed to open : 2 Estimated price due to volume of plastic : <$.05 Estimated price due to volume of plastic : <$.05 Max force per operation : 4 lbs Max force per operation : 4 lbs Scaled ranking of difficulty to be injection molded : 0-3 Scaled ranking of difficulty to be injection molded : 0-3

Concept Development Concepts: Latch Mechanism Latch Mechanism –On base –On flip-top –On flip-top with action on base: Rotating Cap Design Rotating Cap Design Squeeze and Twist Design Squeeze and Twist Design

Concept Selection Influencing factors Influencing factors –Technical feasibility –Conference calls with John Tauber –Discussions with Prof. Keefe –UDesign spreadsheets

Concept Selection Hook Mechanism on Base of Dispenser Reasons for choice Reasons for choice –Very similar in look to old J&J Lid –Tabs are more ergonomic –Easier to Injection Mold –Support from Marketing and Engineering Sponsors

Concept Specifics Applied Force Snap Fit Plug Base Hook Flip-top Hook

Concept Development Tab deflection testing Tab deflection testing Finite Element Analysis Finite Element Analysis Stereolithography prototypes Stereolithography prototypes

Feasibility Testing Tab Deflection Testing Tab Deflection Testing –Sample: Existing Polypropylene Cap –Testing procedure: Instron machine Force vs. Deflection for varying tab sizes Force vs. Deflection for varying tab sizes

Feasibility Testing

Pro/E Finite Element Analysis of Tab Purpose: - Deflection vs. Force - Further validate physical tab deflection testing Results: - Acceptable deflection for given force range

Stereolithography Model Purpose: to test latch mechanism Purpose: to test latch mechanism Material: SLA resin Material: SLA resin 3D laser printing 3D laser printing Issue: Dimensional inaccuracy Issue: Dimensional inaccuracy Fueled new direction Fueled new direction

Problem: Molding Issues Molding Issues Appearance Issues Appearance Issues Thick Cutsvs.Thin Cuts Thick cuts: good for molding, bad for marketing Thin Cuts: bad for molding, good for marketing

Solution: Deflecting wall Deflecting wall –Sponsor satisfaction –Best 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 Works Deflection Cavity Snap-fit Plug Flip-top Hook Applied Force 2-4 lbs Base Hook Flip-top Base

Further Iterations Physical Models Physical Models –Combination of machined polypropylene and modified existing Berry Plastics caps –Two iterations –Helped to further validate design FEA FEA

Final Iteration Cast Urethane Model Cast Urethane Model –Casting process –Material properties –Application for proof of concept

CPSC Testing Consumer Product Safety Commission test specifics : Consumer Product Safety Commission test specifics : – Age: months –Each child given 5 minutes to open package –After 5 minutes tester demonstrates how to open package –Each child given another 5 minutes to open package

Mock CPSC Testing Purpose: To validate design through child testing Purpose: To validate design through child testing Mock test procedure Mock test procedure –Child given chance to open –Child shown how to open cap –Child given additional chance to open Performed utilizing U of D’s Early Childhood Development Center Performed utilizing U of D’s Early Childhood Development Center –4 -5 year old children

Mock CPSC Testing Failure Test Set-up: Only 2 children tested Material failure, not design failure

Recommendations Further Development Further Development –Testing subjects of all ages (focus groups) –Manufacture using Polypropylene Design modifications Design modifications –Possibly increase the undercut –Cap base flush with the lid

Hand-off Plan to Sponsor Final memo Final memo AutoCAD drawing files AutoCAD drawing files Testing procedures and results Testing procedures and results Surviving prototypes Surviving prototypes Recommendations for further development Recommendations for further development

Cost Analysis Theoretical Engineering Cost Theoretical Engineering Cost –$50 an Hour –20 Hours a Week –$56,000 total Actual Costs to Berry Plastics Actual Costs to Berry Plastics –3 Sets of Prototypes –$1,325 Total Actual Costs to University of Delaware Actual Costs to University of Delaware –$500 for Machine Shop Use (25 $20/hr.)

Recap Final design Final design Testing Methods Testing Methods –Instron –Mock CPSC Design Validation Design Validation –Machined Prototypes –Stereolithography Recommendations Recommendations

Questions?

Extra Slides

Estimated Projected Cost Projected TaskCost ComponentResource Time (Sponsor) hrs. Time (UD) hrs. Unit Cost ($/hr.) Total Cost ($) Spon sor Cost ($) UD Cost ($) Design Prototypes Develop concepts Engr. DesignTeam Build Prototypes Stereolithographies made by ProtoCAMMaterials/FabricationProtoCAM Test Prototypes Final concept testing/Proof of conceptEngr. DesignTeam TOTAL

Sectioned Views of Final Concept Deflection Cavity Ribbing Snap Fit PlugUndercut

Proof of Concept Plan Marketing vs. engineering approach Marketing vs. engineering approach Stereolithography prototypes by ProtoCAM Stereolithography prototypes by ProtoCAM Three iterations of prototypes Three iterations of prototypes Use surveys to receive feedback Use surveys to receive feedback Test group of 20 people Test group of 20 people –Wide range of people –At least three senior citizens –At least one child for first iteration –At least five children for second and third iteration