We  frequently see 16- to 18-point board (0.016 to 0.018 in. thick). Using 14- or may be even 12-point board shouldn’t affect most equipment much. The areas most vulnerable to using thin board are:

(1) Magazine and wallet pick: Decreased thickness increases porosity of the material and can affect vacuum pick. The wallet blanks tend to be long. Extra mechanisms may need to be introduced to bring the face of the wallet to the pick point without dragging its ends. Floppy wallet stock may affect the accuracy of code recognition due to potential variability of code location relatively to the scanner (camera).

(2) Plowing and folding: Thinner material will have tendency to be dragged back in folding plows and powered folding fixtures. It may require extra mechanisms for wallet squaring. The thinner stock is easier to imprint upon, create creases, etc. The blister inside the wallet may protrude through the thinner board after compression and make the finished product look less attractive.  A glue wallet might show witness marks from the adhesive more easily.

This response is courtesy of Martin Beriswill from Doyen Medipharm:

The determination of what pressure to test packages at is a calculation that provides you with the pressure parameters based on material and package size.  The pressure test is used to simulate the packages in high altitude conditions, either mountain area or and/or planes.  The pressure is used to confirm the materials and especially the seal strengths are sufficient to maintain the seal integrity and therefore the package sterility. Check with the supplier of the pressure testing equipment.  I would think they would have the calculation and could also provide them with more specific details.  Or contact me and I’ll try some other resources.

This response is courtesy of Martin Beriswill from Doyen Medipharm:

Check with your material supplier. Often suppliers have sealing data on their materials.  The data they have is usually from intermittent lab equipment they use during their development of the materials, so they can confirm performance to the material end user.  If you’re using an intermittent sealing process, the supplier information may be relevant. But if the supplier uses intermittent test equipment and you are using continuous motion sealing equipment, the supplier parameters will not correlate.

Gabor Szakacs at SureTorque helps us on this one. In Gabor’s opinion, the release torque evaluation can be performed in-house without reperforming the same testing on-site. Just use the same standards and test equipment at both places. If the container/cap changes, the evaluation should be repeated. If the capper/induction sealer changes, the evaluation should not be performed again.

Factors that affect this decision are: (1) glue versus heat sealed wallet, (2) the pricing of your contract relative to the labor required, and (3) the length of the contract. First, a glue wallet is typically produced with automated machinery but heat seal can be done semiautomatically. If a glue wallet is required, so likely will be an automated solution regardless of line speed. Pricing, labor cost, and length of contract are all related. A simple assumption of $40K annualized cost per line operator with a two shift operation is $80K annualized per operator position, which is potentially reduced by automating. With only reducing the line by a handful of operators, via automation, your payback can be as little as one year. This also goes to the length of the contract. If you can get at least an 18-month or two-year contract (or longer), then its likely that you will benefit from automating your line. Also, once the job is finished, you’ll own the asset and can sell time on it for new projects. Feel free to contact me directly with your particular scenario.

There are a number of variables that make a definitive answer difficult. For a complete response, we need more information on process flow and your equipment and capacities. However, here is a qualified response.

First, identify the blister(s) after introduction into the cartoner (just prior to loading). Then, print an identification on the carton based upon the blister/blisters (we frequently use a 2-D bar code on the end flap of the carton). Finally, load the cartons into the case, read, and identify all bar codes (print and apply a label that is applied to the case that contains the carton identifications). The application will dictate what is printed (the identifier for each carton or a “License Plate” tag for the case).

It is common that new, added technology requires staffing changes. Local two-year technical schools can be a good source of these types of people. In our current job market, some good people are “on the bench,”
so now is a time to hire. The other key issue is how to keep current manual labor productive when knowing their jobs will be eliminated? Best situation is when you’re adding automation to expand your business and
absorb those staff into new roles. This eliminates the threat of job loss weighing on current staff.

Frankly, it’s more difficult if you are intending to reduce staff as the objective. No easy answers, but probably keep the changes under wraps as long as possible and perhaps plan a “soft landing” of some sort such as outplacement or small severance. That might ensure that you’ll get their cooperation until the changes are complete.

Key to integration is the experience of the supplier, the capability of the supplier’s staff for quality work, and the willingness of the supplier to stand behind challenges that may arise. There are trade offs in hiring a consultant versus charging the supplier of the most critical equipment (yes, it should typically be this supplier on the line) with your integration project.

Consultants that specialize in integration may have a wealth of expertise and experience to help you avoid pitfalls that others may not see. Everything from input and discharge heights, floor plan layout, logistics of material flow, and control are only a few of the issues to be covered. On the downside, it can seem costly to hire a consultant as its in addition to the cost of the equipment and facility modification. Also, the consultant will not have a mastery of any of the equipment on the line and will typically always rely on the suppliers to provide support.

The supplier of the most critical (often most expensive, too) piece of equipment will be naturally engaged in the success of the line and will typically have a broad general knowledge of the issues and challenges needing to be addressed. This is usually more cost effective than the consultant. But beware: many equipment suppliers will say they do integration. Be sure to ask for references for the size and relative scope of your project. Be sure on your end to have enough capable staff, time, and test product available to support the integration.

This response is from my colleague Don Sonntag, division manager at ProSys Innovative Packaging Equipment:

There are several options available for filling and closing a container with a dual-chamber pump (some options listed may not be feasible for all pump container styles):

1) Manual System - Single-Fill Head, Double Pass: designed for low production speeds (less than 20/minute) features manual container and closure loading, then semi-auto filling and closing Product A. System is then cleaned and changed over, pump containers are then run through a 2nd time for filling and closing Product B. This manual system requires multiple operator involvement but offers an economical entry-level cost and requires the pump container to be run through the system twice.

2) Manual System - Double-Fill Head, Single Pass: designed for low production speeds (less than 20/minute) features manual container and closure loading, then semi-auto filling and closing Product A then filling and closing Product B. This manual system also requires operator involvement but only requires the pump container to be run through the system once.

3) Automated System - Single-Fill Head, Double Pass: for moderate/high production speeds, features automated pump container and closure loading, filling and closing Product A. System is then cleaned and changed over, pump containers are then run through a 2nd time for filling and closing Product B. This style of automated system features less handling for the operator and automated feeding of the pump container and closure, but requires the pump container to be run through the system twice. System cost is based on production speeds and level of automation required.

4) Automated System - Double-Fill Head, Single Pass: for moderate/high production speeds, features automated pump container and closure loading, filling and closing Product A and filling and closing Product B. This style of automated system only requires the pump container to be run through the system once. System cost is based on production speeds and level of automation required.

Pumping: many options are available for feeding product to the fill stations from drums or bulk storage tanks. Actual pump system design is determined by storage type, product viscosity, and flow rates required by the filling machinery.

I do not know of an industry definition. It is really more about the application of Good Engineering Practices. Fail-Safe systems are one method of mitigating risks as determined from my earlier post.
Here are some examples:

a. Duplication of sensing.
b. Redundant sensing, different from above in that you use different methods of sensing.
c. Sensor checking to verify on - off each cycle.
d. Design the control system for fail to off (reject all).

The Risk Assessment described in my earlier post will determine which steps to follow.