BERRY PLASTICS CHILD-PROOF CLOSURE
TO:
JOHN TAUBER AND FRANK CASSIDY
COMPANY: BERRY PLASTICS
FROM:
KEN CARDILLO, PATRICE HUGHES, BEN RAAB,
MIKE WASHKO
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY OF PHASE II FOR TEAM 8
DATE:
2/12/2016
CC:
DR. MICHAEL KEEFE (ADVISOR), DR. DICK
WILKINS, DR. JAMES GLANCY, MR. NATE CLOUD,
MR. ROGER STAHL
Executive Summary:
Team 8’s senior design project is to develop a prototype of a child-proof dispensing
closure for Berry Plastics Corporation. Berry Plastics (the closure division), formerly
Poly-Seal, is a Baltimore based facility specializing in injection moldable closures for a
variety of products. Through this project, Berry Plastics Corporation hopes that an
innovative design satisfying all of the specifications set by the project description is
generated. In the long run, this will allow them to break into new markets and increase
profits.
The team visited the Berry Plastics plant in at the beginning of September and met with
the sponsor contact, John Tauber. After this meeting, it was clear that the term “childresistant” was not something that we could build in to our prototype. Because this is a
legal term, the group had to come up with another term (“child-proof”) in order to design
a testable prototype. The team’s other sponsor is the market manager for Berry Plastics,
Frank Cassidy, whom the team met at the Projects Fair. After the visit, a complete list of
customers, wants, and constraints was produced, using UDesign. The list of wants was
prioritized and metrics and target values were derived from this.
The next step in the design process was for the group to begin benchmarking. Two group
members focused on patent searches to get an idea of what was already out there, so that
no patents were infringed upon. The remaining two group members researched actual
products currently on the market. This included the current Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil
cap along with other child-resistant caps and dispensing closure caps. Through
benchmarking and many group discussions, numerous ideas were generated. This list of
ideas was reduced to five through the use of our wants and metrics. They are: a latch
mechanism on the base design, a latch mechanism on the flip-top design, a latch
mechanism on the flip-top with the action on the base design, rotating cap design, and
squeeze and twist design.
After some group iteration of the initial concepts, sponsor feedback, and the reliance on
the engineering specifications derived in UDesign, the team’s concept choice was
narrowed down to two main concepts, the latch mechanism on the base design and the
latch mechanism on the flip-top design. Once these two concepts were selected, the
group began to work on the proof of concept. Issues in the proof of concept include but
are not limited to: out of pocket expenses for the group, the university, and the sponsor
for creating a prototype, the number of iterations the team plans on making through the
use of rapid prototyping, and the general schedule for the remainder of the semester.
After the Phase 1 Presentation, the team discussed their final two initial concepts with the
company sponsor, John Tauber. From this discussion, one of the two concepts was
eliminated: the latch mechanism on the flip-top design. There were many issues
surrounding its elimination, but the main issues were complexity and moldability.
Phase 2 involved transitioning the concept to design. Specifically, in this phase the team
developed a system design that is still aligned with customer needs, wants, and metrics.
The system design is also framed in the context of relevant technology benchmarks.
Also, critical performance/cost aspects of the design were modeled to further validate the
concept. Lastly, a plan to design and build a proof of concept prototype was proposed in
an effective and professional manner.
2
Finally, Phase 3 consisted of a group of iterations on the concept to hone in on a final
working model. These iterations included many different prototyping methods as well as
different testing techniques. After these procedures were performed we are now
confident in our concept’s validity and functionality.
3
Contents Page:
I.
Introduction
II.
Design Process
A. UDesign Spreadsheets
III.
Benchmarking
A. General Types of Closure Mechanisms
B. Existing Child-Resistant Closures
C. Existing Dispensing Closures
IV.
Concept Development
A. Brief Description of Concept Variety
B. Detailed Description of Best Two Concepts
C. Concept Comparison and Validation
D. Technical Feasibility
E. How Final Concept was Chosen and Final Concept Description
V.
System Scope vs. Concept Scope
VI.
Engineering Analysis
A. Design Issues
B. Finite Element Analysis
C. Tab Sizing
VII.
Proof of Concept
VIII.
The Prototype
A. Engineering Materials
B. Model Assumptions
C. Tasks Required to Create a Prototype
D. Sponsor Delivery Plan for the Prototype
E. Prototype Relation to the Sponsor
IX.
Testing
A. CPSC Mock Testing
X.
Work Plan/Schedule
A. Gantt Chart
B. Time Estimates for Phase III
XI.
Budget
A. Cost Analysis
XII.
XIII.
Possible Contingencies
Appendices
4
Introduction:
Project Goal:
The aim of this project is 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.
Problem/Background Information:
Johnson & Johnson is a manufacturer of Baby Oil and there is a growing need for childresistant closure caps because of the recent accidents involving children. Berry Plastics
currently has a cap for Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil that functions as a child-resistant
dispensing closure. However, the design of the current cap is not appealing to customers
because of its complicated opening and because of how different it looks from the
existing cap. A need exists for a cap, which will be easy to open for adults yet satisfies all
of the requirements of child resistance and still has the characteristics of a dispensing cap.
The new cap must also not require any extra operations to close and must always return
to its child-resistant position when closed. The main design issues for this project are
centered on the manufacturing process, the material used, cost and defining childresistant in a way that can be tested by the group’s prototype. Since Berry Plastics is a
corporation specializing in injection molding, the concept that the group comes up with
must have the ability to be manufactured this way. In the same way, the company would
like to use polypropylene because of their usual practice. The cost of the new cap should
not exceed the price (manufacturing cost, market cost) of the old cap by a large amount.
Berry Plastic’s desire is that the cost falls in the same general range. For now, the group
has settled on capturing “child resistance” by the number of independent operations
required to open the cap. In the future, this may become a more concrete description.
This report will describe the methods used to generate the chosen design, include the
projected costs incurred by prototype creation, and the proposed method of transferring
all ideas to the Team’s sponsor in a timely matter. A Gantt chart is included to show the
groups scheduled tasks for the duration of the semester.
Child-Resistant vs. Child-Proof:
The term “child-resistant” has a legal definition where a product is tested by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. During the testing by the CPSC, young children
are given the opportunity to open a container. They are then shown how to open it and
then given another chance. In order to become “child-resistant,” a product must prevent
80% of the children from getting in the second time.
Children are not the only concern of Team 8. Berry Plastics has also expressed concern
about senior citizens. Team 8 will include a test in which the product is given to a group
of senior citizens to see if they can open it. 90% of the senior citizens must be able to get
it open within a certain time period in order for the cap to be acceptable.
Because Team 8 will not be able to have the CPSC perform this test on our prototype, the
term “child-proof” was developed as a goal for Team 8’s prototype. The term “childproof” was defined as having no children be able to get the prototype open within two
5
minutes. The number of children that are expected to be tested are 10 and the number of
prototypes available is 2. The test procedure is laid out later in the memo.
How Concept Adds Value to Berry Plastics/Johnson & Johnson:
If successful, Team 8 will have contributed to the value of Berry Plastics. The new child
resistance dispensing closure is innovative in that it has the child resistance feature,
which is quickly gaining popularity in the current market. There has also been an
increased focus on ease of use with products and this new design will also have that
attribute. Specifically, this new design will allow consumers to easily open the product
without having to remove the actual closure. At the same time, by the cap being a one
piece design, manufacturing costs should be reduced because no expensive assembly
equipment will be required. All of these benefits will lead to increased profits for the
company. Johnson & Johnson will also benefit from the new design. It will provide
them with a child-resistant dispensing closure that they have been required to have. Also,
it will look very similar to their old cap so there will be no issues with consumer
acceptance.
Design Process:
For the duration of iterating the final concept, the team has had to consider the desires of
many different sources, particularly Berry Plastics employees John Tauber, the project
engineer, and Frank Cassidy, the marketing specialist. Both of these project sponsors
have different wants to contribute to the development of the project. Some elements of
the concept’s design are not flexible. For example, the market specialist’s goal is for the
cap to be very similar looking to the existing cap so that it will continue to be a big seller
among consumers and for the product to still be easy to use. He is also concerned with
production and selling costs of the capping system. The engineer is looking for a cap
system that is entirely injection moldable, can be made of polypropylene, is functionally
sound, is simple to manufacture (one-piece design), and does not infringe on any existing
patents. All of these very important characteristics must be incorporated into the team
design. UDesign is a tool that assists in organizing all of these things.
Utilizing UDesign:
After meeting with Frank Cassidy at the “Project Fair” on the first day of class and the
initial meeting with John Tauber, the engineer working on the project, the team
formulated a few other customers and determined the wants of each customer.
Formulating wants was done in a systematic way. Each customer was considered in
detail and the group made a note of everything he or she specifically stated as a want.
This method worked very well for John Tauber because he was a direct sponsor of the
project, and had clear opinions to express about his wishes. Frank Cassidy was also a
project sponsor but only through the direct sponsor, John Tauber. John was the team’s
liaison and every idea or question for Frank was relayed through him. Therefore, the
wants derived for Frank came mainly from the Projects Fair meeting and anything else
that John added. For some of the customers (i.e. Johnson and Johnson Company and
consumers), the team had to role play in order to create wants and constraints because
they were customers we did not have direct contact with. Once all of the wants were
defined, they were prioritized using the UDesign Spreadsheet.
6
Through benchmarking research and information provided by the company sponsor,
metrics were devised. Metrics are a way to measure or quantify the customer wants.
Next the team compared each metric to each want to detect any correlation between
them. Scores were assigned based on how strong of a correlation there was between the
metric and the want (9=Very Strong Correlation; 3= Strong Correlation; 1= Weak). For
instance, one very important want in the design was metric was “one-piece assembled”.
It follows that a direct correlation to this want is “number of pieces assembled”.
Therefore, the metric received a score of 9 in the spreadsheet. That same want also had
other metrics that were correlated in some way. These metrics include: “number of
similar characteristics to old J&J lid (score = 9)” and “Estimated price due to volume of
plastic (score = 3)”. Another essential want in the design was “multi-operation opening”.
It was directly correlated to “number of independent operations needed to open” and
weakly correlated to “number of pieces assembled” and “estimated price due to volume
of plastic”. Each want was compared to each metric in this way and a list of prioritized
metrics was derived.
The next stage in the design process was to begin concept generation. This required
extensive benchmarking to come up with some target values for each metric. Many of the
target values were a result of direct specifications given by the sponsor. These are:
number of pieces assembled, number of independent operations needed to open, and max
force per operation (the standard number used at Berry Plastics). The number of similar
characteristics to old J&J lid target value is an estimate from Team 8. The team believes
that this amount of characteristics would produce a cap very similar to the old lid. The
scaled difficulty to be injection molded target value was decided upon by the team
because it is an easy scale where 3 is easiest and 0 is nearly impossible. After target
values were set, each initial concept was compared to them to see if they fair “better”
(score = 1), “same” (score = .2), or “worse (score = -1)” than the current benchmark. For
example, “number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid” had the target value of 5.
While 4 of 5 concepts all did “better” than the current benchmark, one of the concepts
looked considerably different, and therefore received a score of “worse”. Through this
entire process each of the initial concepts were ranked and two concepts prevailed: the
latch mechanism on the base and the latch mechanism on the flip-top. The following
Figure 1 is a chart of wants, metrics and target values. A link to the complete UDesign
Spreadsheets can be found in Appendix A.
Wants
One Piece Assembled
Multi-Operational Opening
Ease of Use
Asthetically Pleasing
Low Cost
Able to be Manufactured
using Polypropylene
Metrics
Number of pieces assembled
Number of independent operations needed to open
Max force per operation
Number of similar characteristics to old J&J lid
Estimated price due to volume of plastic
Target Values
1.0
2.0
4 lbs
>5
<$.05
Scaled ranking of difficulty to be injection molded
3.0
Figure1: Wants, Metrics, and Target Values
Benchmarking:
Benchmarking was important in the discovery and development of all concepts. The
benchmarking process consisted of several different methods. Pharmacies, Supermarkets
7
and various other places that sold child-resistant products were browsed to observe
current products. In addition, patent searches were conducted through the United States
Patent and Trade Office’s extensive website. Internet searches were also performed to
find closure manufacturers; the best internet resource for this was by far the Thomas
Register website which provided detailed info on many closure manufacturers. The
details of benchmarking can be found in Appendix B. Although the closure market has
many child-resistant caps, almost none are one piece design. Team 8 used current childresistant products to get ideas on how mechanisms were applied to a design to ensure that
it would be child-resistant. For instance, Concept 1, latch on base, was influenced by the
Advil child-resistant caps (Appendix B) which require tabs to be depressed for the screw
cap to be removed. The benchmark which had the greatest influence on concepts was the
existing one piece child-resistant closure recently developed by Berry Plastics (Appendix
B). This design utilized a latch mechanism similar to that in three of the concepts. Since
Berry Plastics already had a product that met many of the wants and constraints of this
design project, it was logical to attempt to modify their existing concepts to meet the
specific requirements of the project. In addition to benchmarking very similar items, all
closures and all child-resistant mechanisms were investigated, which resulted in concepts
that differed greatly but still had the ability to meet the needs of the sponsor. The
Gatorade bottle cap Appendix B with its twist to open feature influenced another Concept
5, that same concept was also influenced by the safety tab mechanism found on
mouthwash (Appendix B). Patent searches were an important aspect of benchmarking, as
they provided not only ideas and possible solutions, but also eliminated the chance of
patent infringement. Examples of some patents used in benchmarking appear in
Appendix B.
Concept Development:
Brief Description of Concept Variety:
Throughout the problem definition, benchmarking and basically every step of the design
project thus far, team members have been developing concepts for the design of a childresistant one piece cap. All designs incorporated some sort of mechanism that required
an action to allow opening of the flip-top. Several different actions were possible, and
each had several different methods of application. Pushing, pulling and twisting were the
main three actions applied to the concepts, as well as the most common that appeared in
benchmarking research.
The concepts developed consisted of three separate concepts utilizing a latch mechanism,
one concept utilizing a push and twist mechanism and one concept utilizing only a twist
mechanism. Below are initial sketches and brief descriptions of each design. See Figure
2.
8
9
10
Figure 2: Initial Concept Sketches
Detailed Description of Chosen Concepts:
The concepts picked by the design team to develop further were both latch mechanisms,
differing in the location and operation of the latch mechanism. Concepts 1 and 2 were
picked by the design team to further develop. A conference call with John Tauber in
which all concepts were discussed and evaluated also played a large role in concept
selection. Other influencing factors were discussion with advisor Professor Keefe as well
as team discussions on technical feasibility. Specific reasons for the selection of these
two concepts were that they both met all the wants and constraints of the problem. In
addition, concept 1 would be the easiest to operate (which would fall under both “ease of
use” and “multi-operational opening”), as well as maintaining an appearance very similar
to the existing Johnson & Johnson product line. Concept 2 while not as easy to operate
as concept 1 requires almost no additional plastic and will appear almost identical to the
existing Johnson & Johnson product line. Disadvantages to concept 1 are the need for
increasing the height of the cap to accommodate the push tabs so as not to incur product
leakage; this of course will require more plastic which is another disadvantage.
Disadvantages to concept 2 are that the latch mechanism must be located in the lid, which
is very small in clearance. The operation of this mechanism will have to occur on the
flip-top, which may cause ease of use issues. In addition, the latch mechanism has to be
refined some what into a proven concept which could be difficult. See Figure 3 and
Figure 4 for details.
11
Figure 3: AutoCAD solid model of Concept 1. Features are exaggerated for
conveyance of concept.
Concept 1: Tabs on the base of the cap are pushed inward to release the latch
mechanism which is engaged with an undercut located on the underside of the
flip-top. In order to ensure product does not leak, the base of the cap is recessed
behind the location of the tabs. This allows the product to be sealed while
keeping the familiar cylindrical appearance of the current product. In order to
provide these recesses, the base of the cap must be heightened.
Figure 4: AutoCAD solid model of Concept 2. Cutout to show latch mechanism.
12
Concept 2: Small tabs on the flip-top are pushed inward to release a latch
mechanism engaged on the base of the cap. The mechanism for this is still under
development.
Concept Comparison and Validation for Phase 2 Final Two Concepts:
The two concepts chosen to proceed to the next stage most accurately met the wants and
constraints of each of the customers. Specifically, the first concept (latch mechanism on
the base) completely satisfied the group’s top three wants. It is one piece assembled, has
a multi-operational opening, and is the most easy to use of all the concepts. It was very
strongly correlated with two of the team’s metrics and strongly correlated to two of them
as well. The second concept (latch mechanism on the flip-top) also matched up well with
all of the wants. It was especially very aesthetically pleasing because it is nearly identical
to the old Johnson & Johnson lid, of low cost because it requires very little plastic to be
added, and able to be assembled in one piece. This concept was very strongly correlated
to one of the team’s metrics and somewhat correlated to various other metrics. Overall,
both of these concepts most closely matched the customer wants.
The two concepts also satisfied the constraints set by Team 8. Each of these concepts
had the eventual ability to be injection molded. The team made sure to keep this
constraint in mind when coming up with concepts where complicated pull out injection
molding techniques might be required. These concepts did not infringe on any existing
patents. In general, concepts may build upon existing patents (which some of the team’s
concepts did) but must not directly use one already in existence (which none of our
concepts did). Lastly, the cap concept must be adaptable to the Baby Oil product line.
Simple dimensioning of the dispensing cap allows for the satisfaction of this want.
The top two concepts were compared to the others to show their advantage. While
compared to other considered concepts such as twist lids (Concept 5: squeeze and twist
design), these two concepts could be modified in many ways to look exactly like what the
customers want. The other concepts didn’t have this capability because their function
depended greatly on their outside appearance. Concept 5 also required a more
complicated mold. The two concepts also faired better than the second to last concept
(the rotating cap design) simply because they were significantly easier to mold and easier
for consumers to use. The team believes that the trade-off between wants, constraints,
and engineering performance has been optimized is confident that this project will be
successful as it progresses to its final stages.
Technical Feasibility:
Team 8 has made efforts to incorporate technical feasibility into the scope of this project.
The ideas of injection moldability and easy to use made their way into the list of wants
for the final design. John Tauber was consulted on the issue of moldability because of his
expertise in plastic molding. Since the new design will be very similar to the old design,
its ability to be manufactured is certainly very feasible. Many other applications (as seen
through benchmarking at local stores and on the internet) already use plastic deformation
for their product operation. A concern of the latch on flip top concept is that small pieces
on the lid could become a problem. However, after speaking with John Tauber, it seems
as if even this problem can be resolved because more space can be allotted in the cap
13
where the group needs it. Further analysis on this topic will be done in the following
phases.
How Phase 2 Final Concept was Chosen and Concept Description:
By the end of Phase I, Team 8 had narrowed down the choices to two concepts with the
only difference being the location of the latch mechanism. Following the presentation,
which included much feedback from Berry Plastics engineer John Tauber, the decision
was made to position the tabs on the base of the cap (Concept 1). The decision to make
Concept 1 the final design was a result of several influencing factors including the
opinions of John Tauber, negative aspects of the alternate concept, and advantages of
Concept 1 over Concept 2. The largest factor was the effect that developing the two
concepts would have on the design specifications. At the end of Phase I, the details of
the latch mechanism were still unclear in Concept 2. When the team began to further
develop this concept it became apparent that the very small clearances and overall height
of the flip top would be a big constraint in the further development of Concept 2. The
height of the existing Johnson & Johnson’s flip top is very small and to have a push
button located on this flip top would require a tradeoff of some sort. In other words, the
top would have to be made higher to allow for a larger push button and more space for
the mechanism itself. This would be very damaging to the similarity of appearance to the
existing Johnson & Johnson flip top. However, if the height of the flip top were to
remain as it is on the existing flip top, the mechanism and push button would be very
limited in size, which would result in difficult operation for the user. The size of the
button/tab is very important for the ease of use. While the max force per operation is
specified, the pressure needed for that operation is just as important. Locating the push
buttons on a flip top the size of the existing Johnson & Johnson cap would require a
much greater pressure from the operator due to the small surface area of each button.
The opinion of John Tauber was very important, who after hearing our entire presentation
and following discussions felt that Concept 1 would be easier to manufacture and easier
to model after the existing cap. Team 8 felt that because of these issues, the better
concept to choose would be Concept 1.
Description of Concept 1: Tabs on the base of the cap are pushed inward to
release the latch mechanism which is engaged with an undercut located on the
underside of the flip-top. In order to ensure product does not leak, the base of the
cap is recessed behind the location of the tabs. This allows the product to be
sealed while keeping the familiar cylindrical appearance of the current product.
In order to provide these recesses, the base of the cap must be heightened. 3-D
AutoCAD drawings of the final concept are shown in Figure 5, Figure 6, and
Figure 7 below.
14
Figure 5: AutoCAD solid model of Phase 2 Final Concept
Figure 6: AutoCAD solid model section view of Phase 2 Final Concept
15
Figure 7: AutoCAD solid model section view of Phase 2 Final Concept
Satisfaction of wants, metrics and target values:
The final concept satisfies the wants and engineering specifications (metrics and target
values) very well. See Figure 8 for a comparison of metrics/target values for Concept 1.
Metric
Number of similar characteristics to
old J&J lid
Number of pieces assembled
Number of independent operations
needed to open
Target Value
>5
Concept 1 Value
5
1
2
1
2
Estimated price due to volume of <$.05
plastic
<$.05
Max force per operation
4 lbs
<4 lbs.
Scaled ranking of difficulty to be 2-3(John Tauber’s
injection molded
discretion)
3 – easy to injection mold
( according to John)
Figure 8: How Final Concept satisfies wants, metrics, and target values.
16
System Scope vs. Concept Scope:
The scope of the proof of concept prototype is very different than the system scope. The
scope of the proof of concept prototype matters only to the project as it applies to the
senior design course. The teams have approximately 15 weeks for the entire design
process. During this time, each team must come up with initial concepts, narrow down
these concepts to the best one or two, conduct testing to determine if the concept is
viable, and create a prototype of the design. The system scope involves all of the issues
involved in the senior design course along with extra issues posed by company sponsors.
For instance, while Team 8’s scope of the proof of concept prototype ends after the
prototype is designed, the system scope continues to the next stage of advancement. This
is where the company sponsor takes the prototype, secures a patent (if necessary) and
builds the actual cap made of polypropylene and legally tests for child resistance.
Engineering Analysis:
Design Issues:
Wall Thickness & Ribbing
Feedback from John Tauber was a very influential factor in the design of the prototype.
Utilizing an .stl viewer and e-mail, John Tauber was able to review all changes and
modifications to the design immediately after they were made. John helped Team 8 to
iterate from the initial concept to the concept that was sent to ProtoCAM. A key factor in
the design was the use of ribbing. John was unhappy with the large wall thickness
located on the inside of the cap. This wall thickness existed because of the odd interface
between the outer wall of the cap, the cavities and the inner wall for the snap fit. To
remedy this situation the thick walls were replaced with ribs. Ribbing is commonly used
in the design of plastic parts. It greatly reduces the overall volume of the part, but at the
same time results in only a slight loss in rigidity. Incorporating ribbing into the design
was the final design change needed to satisfy John’s design requirements and that .stl file
was immediately sent to ProtoCAM for rapid prototyping. Figure 9 below shows the
solid model that was sent to ProtoCAM, it is oriented to illustrate the ribbing.
17
Figure 9: Solid Model of final design showing ribbing
Tab Sizing:
A key factor in the design of the cap is the sizing of the tabs which must be pushed
inward to open the flip top. Team 8 utilized two methods for sizing the tabs to ensure
proof of concept.
Constraints:
 A maximum pullout of 0.03” was specified by John Tauber, as it is the limitations
of the molding process. This affects our tab design in the sense that the
hook/latch mechanism can only overlap by 0.03”.
 This is also the minimum amount by which the free end of the tab (which contains
the hook) must be deflected in order to allow opening of the flip top.
Issues




The curvature of the tab will affect the deflection.
Thickness of the tab will affect the deflection.
Width of tab will affect the deflection.
Height of tab, for both deflection and cavity size which will affect overall sizing
of cap, height of base and diameter. Size of mating bottle orifice is assumed to be
non adjustable, only attachment method is adjustable. This is because the
18


procedure by which the baby oil is poured into bottle may be reliant on that
orifice size.
Notches in tab could provide effective thickness at a critical bending point. This
notch would be again limited by the maximum pullout as specified earlier by John
Tauber.
The entire hook must clear the entire latch. If the arc is only deflected 0.03” at
the center, the sides of it may not clear the latches. This could be remedied by
decreasing the width of the hook, but not the width of the tab.
The Instron Testing:
To physically test different tab sizes, an Instron machine was used. The test specimens
were polypropylene flip-top caps manufactured by Berry Plastics. These caps had the
same diameter and wall thickness that the existing baby oil caps do. Several different tab
sizes were machined into caps (See Figure 10).
Figure 10: Cut caps with test probe
The bottom of the cap was used to make the tabs because the top part contains internal
threads which would greatly change the deflection of the tab. The caps were mounted on
a special device designed and machined by Team 8. The mounting plate was attached to
the Instron machine located in Dr. Novotny’s bio lab (See Figure 11). The Instron tests
proved to be very valuable in the physical model aspect of our design. As expected with
the results, all the tab sizes yielded deflections well above the minimum requirement of
0.03”, and all tab sizes yielded this end deflection at the minimum force of 2 lbs.
19
Figure 11: Mounting device and test specimen set-up
Instron Testing Procedure (See Figure 12 and Figure 13):





Cap with tab fastened into custom test mounting block.
Tab being tested aligned for normal contact with test probe.
Measurements of test probe location recorded using calipers.
Probe zeroed on test tab such that probe is in contact with tab but deflection of tab
is zero.
Different increments of force applied to tab and resulting deflection of tab
recorded.
.
20
Figure 12: The Instron Test
The engineering drawings for the tab’s and Instron mounting block are located in
Appendix H. They were approved by Dr. Keefe and machined in the Spencer machine
shop.
21
Figure13: The Instron Test in progress
Located in Appendix I is a picture of the cap and tab dimensions and the data from the
tab testing.
Proof of Concept:
The actual proof of concept plan can be found in Appendix C. After talking with the
team sponsor, the proof of concept plan becomes more of a marketing approach then an
engineering approach. What this means is that the opinions of real world people is very
important to the sponsors, John Tauber and Frank Cassidy. Both of them want feed back
from real world people as to how they think the dispensing lid functions. In order to
accomplish this, Team 8 will make three iterations of the prototype. For each iteration,
the prototype will be made of a flexible resin by ProtoCAM. This prototype will not be
made of polypropylene, but the flexible-resin will have mechanical properties close
enough to it. When each iteration is received, testing will be done with twenty people
22
(the time limit the amount of people able to be tested). The subject group will consist of
Senior Design students, faculty, friends, and family in order to get the opinions of a wide
range of people. At least three senior citizens will be included in testing. A survey will
be given to each person testing the lid. The questions on the survey will be made to
address particular issues such as the sizing of the tabs or the force needed to move the
tabs. The information gained from the surveys will then be used to make appropriate
changes to the design. The survey can be found in Appendix F. For each iteration, ten of
the same people will be used to make up the testing group with ten new people. The
sponsor also wanted a limited number of testing done with children. For the first
iteration, only one child will be tested. However, for the next two iterations, at least five
children will be used for testing. If any children are able to get into the prototype, this
would become the first priority to fix. With three iterations, all major problems should be
solved for the design and a working prototype will be provided to Berry Plastics with
marketing research already performed on it.
The Prototype:
Engineering Materials:
The team is going to have a prototype created by ProtoCAM, a company specializing in
rapid prototyping. It is going to be a stereolithography prototype. The part will be made
of SL 7545 material (See Appendix E for complete material properties). Some of the
favorable characteristics associated with this type of material are: ability to operate under
high temperature, flexibility, and water resistance. When testing the final design with
people, it is good to be utilizing a material that is not easily deformed or broken. The
material data sheet for SL 7545 is located in Appendix E. The material that will be used
for the final product that will be released to the market is polypropylene, and after
consulting with engineers at ProtoCAM, it was made clear that SL 7545 was the best
choice for mimicking a part that will eventually be made of polypropylene.
Polypropylene is the material that is used for much of Berry Plastics products.
Polypropylene has the following favorable characteristics: high temperature resistance,
low density, high fatigue resistance, short manufacturing cycle time. For this reason,
polypropylene is the most suitable material for the final product.
Tasks Required to Create a Prototype:
In order to complete the prototype fabrication process, there were many steps that had to
be taken prior to sending the 3-D models to ProtoCAM. First, dimensions for the tabs
needed to be further examined. Through testing, the dimensions needed for the force to
provide the proper deflections of the tabs were found. Also, the team engaged in many
conversations with John Tauber to decide on modifications to the current design. After
the initial design was agreed upon, the part was modeled and sent to ProtoCAM for a
stereolithography prototype. With this rapid prototype, the group will be able to further
examine any potential concerns with the final design and continue to iterate as necessary.
Further Prototypes:
Then next step in order to further validate the newest concept was to find a wall thickness
that would deflect the needed amount with a 2-4 lb force. In order to do this, the newest
iteration of prototypes was made. However, instead of using a stereolithography, a
23
combination of machined polypropylene and modified existing caps would be used. The
polypropylene was ordered from McMaster-Carr and was a four foot long bar of solid
polypropylene with a diameter of 1.25”. This polypropylene was machined in the
machine shop of the lathe to wall thicknesses of 30 and 60 thousands of an inch. The
existing caps consisted of Berry Plastic’s caps that were made of polypropylene and had
the desired diameter of 28 mm. The walls of these caps where machined away so only
the top, the flip top, the living hinge, and two sections of wall where left at the front and
end of the cap. The machined polypropylene was then slid over these two existing wall
parts and riveted on. This basically gave us a full polypropylene cap with deflecting
walls. It was found that a wall thickness of 30 thousands of an inch gave the needed
deflection for the force. Tabs where then glued to the sleeves so that they latched to a
part of the flip top, therefore adding the child proofing device to this prototype. However
the glue did not work well on the polypropylene and the iteration could not be tested. In
order to not have the tabs glued on, the next iteration involved making tabs on the
machined outer wall. By doing this a working prototype was made. This helped further
validate the concept. However parts of the machined sleeves where only connected by 30
thousands of an inch and where to fragile to do testing with children.
Figure 14: The Machined Prototyping Process
Figure 15: The Machined Prototype
24
In order to make a prototype that could be tested with children, a cast urethane prototype
was investigated. John Tauber suggested this idea. Calls with ProtoCAM and with John
Tauber proved that a cast urethane would have material properties more similar to
polypropylene then the SLA stereolithography. Therefore the newest 3D model was sent
to ProtoCAM to have a cast urethane prototype made. A cast urethane model is made by
first making a stereolithography of the part. This stereolighography is then used to make
a temporary rubber mold. This mold is then used to make the cast urethane model. This
process takes ten days and is more expensive, however the prototypes worked very well.
The flip top was attached to the base using a paper clip through holes that were added to
each in the 3D model. When the flip top was closed, it was not possible to open the lid
without depressing the sides and moving the hooks inward. This proved that the concept
worked, however the material properties of the cast urethane were not as good as hoped.
With only doing preliminary testing, the cast urethane was beginning to crack. The cast
urethane was much more brittle then polypropylene and not as strong. However, the
prototype proved that the concept worked.
Figure 16: Cast Urethane Prototype
As the end of Phase II, we had planed for three sets of iterations. All of these iterations
would be completed and tested before December. This schedule was made so that a
buffer zone would exists in case of emergencies. We did successfully have three sets of
prototypes made in phase III, however it took into December. This was due to the time it
takes for a cast urethane model to be made. It took two days for the stereolithography to
be made and we assumed it would take the same amount of time for the other prototypes.
However it took ten days for the cast urethane prototype to be made. Therefore we used
our buffer time in the beginning of December. During the first two weeks of phase III,
25
the stereolithographies were studied and the next concept of deflecting walls was
investigated. During the next two and a half weeks, the machined prototypes were made
and tested. It then took two weeks to send out model to ProtoCAM, receive the quote
and have it approved by Berry Plastics, and finally have the parts made and shipped. The
testing was then done during the last week along with the presentation.
Final Prototype:
Following the Phase II presentation, the team traveled to Berry Plastics in Baltimore to
present again, this time for Frank Cassidy marketing manager. Following the
presentation, a meeting was held with both Frank Cassidy and John Tauber. This
meeting brought about a critical problem with one aspect of the current design. The cuts
in the side of the base of the cap that make the tabs were the issue, and they were an issue
from both an engineering standpoint and a marketing standpoint. Due to the fact that the
end product would be injection molded, the cuts would actually have to part of the mold.
The thicker the cuts, the thicker and therefore more robust and reliable the mold could be.
However, Frank Cassidy had a problem with thick cuts, because the thicker the cuts the
less visually appealing the design was, furthermore, the less the design looked like the
previous Johnson & Johnson Baby Oil flip-top closure.
Figure 17: Thin Cut to Thick Cut Comparison
This was a very critical problem, since there would be a tradeoff between the happiness
of two of the key customers (John Tauber and Frank Cassidy). Rather than find a
thickness that would make both somewhat happy, team 8 adopted a deflecting wall
design modification that totally eliminated the cuts and achieved complete sponsor
satisfaction. The design is shown below.
26
Figure 18: Final Concept Specifics
As seen in Figure 18, this iteration utilizes a deflecting wall to allow for the detachment
of the latch mechanism. As shown in the figure above, the applied force is still only 2-4
pounds, which meets the target values previously specified.
Sponsor Delivery Plan for the Prototype:
The sponsor has been delivered all of the engineering drawings leading up to the creation
of an actual prototype. Once the stereolithography prototype is made, it will take a little
over a week to be delivered to the team. The sponsor will be able to examine the
prototype as soon as the team has access to it.
Prototype Relation to the Sponsor:
The prototype will be very important in order for the sponsor gain confidence in the
team’s design. In addition to a 2-D visual (or a 3-D representation on a 2-D plane), it will
give the sponsor something tangible to observe. In other words, it will confirm the
feasibility of the design. The prototype will also give the sponsor an idea of the actual
process that will be required to actually manufacture the cap. Lastly, with an actual part
available, the sponsor can predict the actual volume of plastic that will be needed for the
design.
Testing:
Consumer Product Safety Commission Testing:
When swallowed, the hydrocarbons contained in Baby Oil can be very detrimental and
even fatal to young children. Because of this, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) requires that Baby Oil have a child-resistant lid. The child-resistant testing
procedure is very detailed in specific, but the main aspects of the testing procedure can be
described as follows. The children tested were between 42-51 months. First, the child is
given five minutes to open the cap. If the child is unsuccessful, then the child is shown
by the tester how to open the cap. Finally, the child is given one additional chance for
27
five more minutes to open the cap. This is the main procedure for the CPSC Testing but
the specific procedure can be found in Appendix J.
In order to further validate the final design, the team decided to conduct a Mock CPSC
Test. The testing was performed utilizing the University of Delaware’s Early Childhood
Development Center at Alison Hall. The test subjects were from a class of twenty
students who ranged between four and five years of age. The team’s plan was to test
most of the children but was not able to because the prototypes were broken after testing
the second child. Even so the results were very revealing.
The first child was not able to figure out the child proof mechanism (depress the hollow
wall and lift flip-top) and was unsuccessful in opening the cap. The second child was
also not able to figure out the child proof mechanism. However, through brute force, was
able to rip the tab from the rest of the bottle. It could be clearly seen from the point of
failure that the undercut in place had been strong enough to stop the child from
overcoming the child proof mechanism. The child was able to get into the cap due to the
weakness of the cast urethane material that was being used instead of polypropylene.
Another very important factor was that both of the children tested were older than the
standard CPSC age (they were 55 months old and 59 months old). The older child is the
one who was able to break into the cap. See Appendix K for a picture of the failed
prototype.
Work Plan:
The time allotted for each major aspect of the design process and the major group tasks
involved leading to project completion are outlined in the Gantt chart shown below (Fig.
19). It can also be found in Appendix D.
Problem
Definition
Methods of
Solving
the Problem
Resource
Management
Constructing
Prototype
Testing and
Evaluation
and Final
Presentation
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
DECEMBER
NOVEMBER
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4
Tm.
Formed;
Plant Visit
Benchmarking; Concept Generation; Sponsor Meetings – refine concepts;
UDesign – Wants/Constraints, Metrics/Target Values, Concept Selection;
Phase I and II Report and Presentation
Cost Analysis – Required Materials for Prototype; Time Management –
Services needed
Three iterations of the prototype will be
made by ProtoCAM. Solid models
will
Engineering
Analysis;
be made in AutoCAD and Pro/E.
stereolithography prototypes
Testing will be performed over a wide range of people
including children and senior citizens. Data from testing
will be used to improve the design.
Figure19: Gantt chart
28
Phase III Work Summary:
During Phase III, prototypes were made to validate and add confidence to our concept.
These prototypes were used in tab deflection testing, child safety testing, and concept
development. The timing and access to these prototyping methods were vital to the
success of our team.
Budget:
Manufacturing cost can be controlled through the number of manufacturing steps, the
number of pieces per capping system, and the materials used. At the beginning of the
project, The Mechanical Engineering department provided an account ($200) to cover
some of the costs that would be incurred during the semester (travel, material costs, etc.).
For Phase I, the only resources used were the engineering design capabilities of Team 8.
For a company to hire an engineer and have them research a similar design, a price of $50
an hour was estimated with salary and overhead considered. With four engineers
working forty hours each on the two concepts, this would theoretically cost a company
$8,000.
For Phase II, the cost of having stereolithographies made added to the cost of the
engineering design capabilities. A set of four prototypes was ordered for the first
iteration at a price of $495.00. The quote can be found in Appendix G. For further
development of the prototype and preliminary testing, 120 hours were used. This comes
to a theoretical price of $24,000. The University of Delaware’s machine shop was also
used. For the raw materials used (1 small block of plastic) and machine shop hours,
about $100 were used.
For future costs, two more sets of stereolithography prototypes will be made. At a cost of
about $500 a set of four, a $1000 more dollars will be spent on making prototypes. With
another 120 hours of engineering time going into testing and modifying the prototypes,
another $24,000 theoretical dollars would be spent on the engineers. More time may also
be used at the machine shop charging another $100. The actual cost to Berry Plastic will
be about $1,500 for the three sets of stereolithographies to be made by ProtoCAM. The
total time of engineering work comes out to a four member engineering group working
twenty hours a week. The total theoretical charge for the engineering time comes out to
$56,000.
The second two sets of prototypes were the cast urethane RTV mold prototypes. In order
to make the cast urethane RTV mold, a high resolution stereolithography prototype
needed to be built, from which the RTV mold would be made. The total cost of this set
of prototypes was $740. The entire cost to Berry Plastics for all three sets of prototypes
was $1,325, which is below our target value of $1,500. The quotations from ProtoCAM
can be found in Appendix G.
Possible Contingencies:
There are certain contingencies that Team 8 will have to plan for in the future. The first
one is the delivery time for the stereolithographies made by ProtoCAM. It is estimated
that it takes ten days, but delays have to be planned for. The second contingency is
29
unforeseen problems. The recent hurricane set Team 8 back four days. Unforeseen
problems have to be considered at all times. Another problem may be that a third set of
iterations is needed. If this comes about, it will be very hard to have this done within the
time limit. Heavy modifications to the plan and a lot of last minute work will have to be
preformed if this happens. The other alternative (if time will not permit additional
iterations) is to incorporate this contingency in our “hand of to sponsor plan” and allow
the company sponsor to take over the project from that point. The final contingency is if
the prototype fails when tested with children. This would also lead to modifications of
the plan, necessary modifications to the prototype, and a lot of last minute work. We are
confident that our concept can be successful only with slight variation. Therefore Team 8
only sees slight modifications having to be made which will hopefully be performed in a
quick process. Hopefully none of these serious problems will happen, but a good back up
plan will account for any of them if necessary. If everything goes well, this will lead to
benefits for Berry Plastics and the members of Team 8. Berry Plastics will be given a
thoroughly devised and tested prototype that it can take to the next level and hopefully
use in its product line. This would lead to huge profits for Berry Plastics. If the concept
is taken to the next level, a patent will be taken out on it and this would look very good
on the resumes of the members of Team 8.
Transition Plan:
In order for a simple transition process, we will explain some concerns that we might
have with our project along with our ideas and plans to move forward. First of all, we are
confident through the amount of iterations we have done that our concept is strong and
will be successful with little further modification. As you can see in some of the data, the
latch mechanism should deflect far enough to disengage with appropriate forces. This
validates that the concept physically functions. Also, through discussion with John
Tauber, we are confident that the molding processes available are sufficient to allow this
piece to be made in a simple 1-D pull mold. Although, a concern of ours is that the
current design might not pass CPSC “child-resistant” testing. As you know, we have
attempted to imitate this test to assure us that this concept will be acceptable. In addition
to these test, this concept resembles the same process for opening of the previous design
by Berry Plastics which has passed the “child-resistant” testing. The only differences
between their functionalities are we increased the number of latches from one to two and
the appearance of our design is very similar to that of the current Johnson and Johnson
Baby Oil cap. For these reasons we are confident in the project’s future.
This project does not have any scale-up issues in terms of size of the piece but does need
to be considered on a large scale production situation. Because of some thin wall
thicknesses, cooling of this piece could provide some cost issues. On large scale molding
production lines, the need for careful extended cooling time causes longer cycle periods
which cost more. Also if these pieces need to be removed from the mold and held in a
certain position to eliminate any unwanted deformation in thin walls, this would increase
the cost of the molding machinery as well.
For further development and implementation of this design, we recommend that Berry
Plastics reconsiders our validation for concept functionality. In order to move forward as
we recommend to the next step of building a steel mold, which is an expensive step, we
would like Berry Plastics to be very confident in our work. After they have reached their
desired confidence level, we expect that they will be willing to invest to make real parts
30
to run their child safe, elderly, and marketing testing. During these processes, we also
expect that this concept will be patented.
Hand-Off Plan to Sponsor:
There are some deliverables that must be given to Berry Plastics after this project is
complete. They will receive a copy of the final memo as a reference of what the team has
done for the entire semester. All of the AutoCAD drawing files will be sent via email to
the company sponsor John Tauber. Also, all of the testing procedures and results will be
delivered. Berry Plastics will also receive any surviving prototypes just in case further
testing and analysis with them is needed. Lastly, along with the memo, all of the
recommendations for further development will be included in the hand-off to Berry
Plastics.
31
Appendix A:
Team 8’s UDesign Spreadsheets can be found here. The attachment is located on the
WebCT server.
See file: UDesignT8_3.xls
32
Appendix B:
Benchmarking Information.
Patents
33
34
35
36
37
Closure Manufacturing Association
Child-resistant closure
Description and Function:
Child-Resistant closures are defined in the Closure Manufacturers Association Technical Bulletin 4.
Further definitions of child-resistant closures are outlined in the ASTM Standard Classification of ChildResistant Closures Designation D 3475
Child-Resistant closures are designed to meet and/or exceed regulatory requirements as outlined in the
poison prevention packaging Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. 1700.1(b)(4), 1700.3, 1700.15, and 1700.20. Packages
using child-resistant closures are defined as "packaging that is designed or constructed to be significantly
difficult for children under five years of age to open and not difficult for normal adults to use properly".
Type I, A. - Random push down while turning.
Type I, B. -Localized squeeze force while turning.
Type II, A. - Random push down while turning.
38
Type III, A. - Align two points then push up on tab or lip.
Individual Existing Benchmarks
39
Gamer Packaging
40
Child-resistant closure
The StullSure™ 1-piece, flip-top closure was developed in response to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission’s vote to require child-resistant packaging for
common household and cosmetic products containing 10% or more low-viscosity
hydrocarbons by weight. The patented snap-on, flip-top design creates a 1-piece,
child-resistant package. Polypropylene closure is currently in 28 mm size, but will
soon be available in 24 mm.
Thomas Register’s Online Database
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
All-Pak, Inc. -- Bridgeville , PA -- All Sizes, All Styles, Stock, Custom
Olcott Plastics -- St. Charles , IL -- Mfg. Of Plastic Jars, Closures & Drinkware Including
Straight Sided, Style Line & Double Wall Jars. Capabilities Include...
Connecticut Cap & Seal -- New Britain , CT -- Custom & Standard Metal Screw Caps &
Closures. CT Caps. Lug Caps. Can Products. Sealing Discs. Plastisol Lining Of Closures
PHILCAN -- Baltimore , MD -- All Types Plain Or Lithographed Cans & Pails Metal Or Plastic
Champion Container Corp. -- Avenel , NJ -- Metal & Plastic Closures, Lined/Unlined; Also
Drum Closures
Eyelet Design Inc. -- Waterbury , CT -- Mfr. Of Cosmetic Metal Closures & Deep Drawn
Industrial Components. Serving The Cosmetics, Automotive, Electrical & Other...
WB Bottle Supply Co., Inc. -- Milwaukee , WI -- Distributor Of Glass & Plastic Bottles,
Containers & Jars; Metal & Plastic Closures; Sprayers, Pumps, Fitments. Service Food,...
Master Molded Products Corp. -- Elgin , IL -- Custom Molder Of Thermoplastics. Complete
Engineering & Design Capabilities, EDM Prototype, Insert Molding, Molded Plastic...
Carow Packaging -- Crystal Lake , IL -- Supplier Of Glass Bottle, Plastic Bottle, Dispensing
Pump & Closure Applications To Customers In The Personal Care, Aroma-...
Penn Bottle & Supply Co. -- Essington , PA -- Supplier Of Metal & Plastic Caps & Closures,
Child-Resistant Caps, Dispensing Caps, Trigger & Finger Tip Sprayers, Pumps....
41
Appendix C:
This is Team 8’s Proof of Concept Plan for the remainder of the semester.
Proof of Concept Plan
Week
Of
21
September
Phase One Presentation
28
Make changes to concepts after
feedback from sponsor
Begin making 3D solid models
5
12
October
Rapid prototype two final concepts
Test ergonomics of life size model
Engineering and dimensional
analysis
Decide between concepts if possible
19
26
Have stereolithography prototype
made by Protocam
Begin testing
Decide between 2 concepts if not
done yet
Phase 2 presentation
November
2
Test 1st iteration of prototype
Decide changes according to
surveys
23
Build new 3D model
Order 2nd prototype from ProtoCAM
Test 2nd iteration of prototype
Decide changes according to
surveys
Build new 3D model
Order 3rd prototype from ProtoCAM
30
Perform final testing
7
14
December
Prepare for final presentation
Final review
9
16
42
Appendix D:
This is a Gantt Chart of general scheduled Team 8 tasks.
Problem
Definition
Methods of
Solving
the Problem
Resource
Management
Constructing
Prototype
Testing and
Evaluation
and Final
Presentation
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
DECEMBER
NOVEMBER
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3
WK 4 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4
Tm.
Formed;
Plant Visit
Benchmarking; Concept Generation; Sponsor Meetings – refine concepts;
UDesign – Wants/Constraints, Metrics/Target Values, Concept Selection;
Phase I and II Report and Presentation
Cost Analysis – Required Materials for Prototype; Time Management –
Services needed
Three iterations of the prototype will be
made by ProtoCAM. Solid models will
be made in AutoCAD and Pro/E.
Testing will be performed over a wide range of people
including children and senior citizens. Data from testing
will be used to improve the design.
43
Appendix E:
SL 7545 Material Data Sheet
SL 7545 Material
Test Method
Value
90 minute UV
Value
90 m UV + 2h 80C
Hardness, Shore D
ASTM D2240
79
81
Flexural Modulus
ASTM D790
1,390 - 1,560 MPa
200 - 225 KSI
1,460 - 1,600 MPa
210 - 230 KSI
Flexural Strength
ASTM D790
50 - 55 MPa
7,300 - 8,000 PSI
52 - 56 MPa
7,500 - 8,100 PSI
Tensile Modulus
ASTM D638
1,400 - 1,900 MPa
200 - 275 KSI
1,500 - 1,900 MPa
220 - 280 KSI
Tensile Strength
ASTM D638
35 - 40 MPa
5,000 - 5,700 PSI
35 - 40 MPa
5,000 - 5,700 PSI
Elongation at Break
ASTM D638
12 - 21%
10 - 16%
Impact Strength, Notched
Izod
ASTM D256
28 - 39 J/m
(0.5 - 0.7 ft - lbs/in)
22 - 33 J/m
(0.4 - 0.6 ft - lbs/in)
ASTM D648 @ 66
PSI
48 - 50C (118 122F)
58 - 60C (136 140F)
ASTM D648 @ 264
PSI
43 - 48C ( 109 118F)
48 - 50C (118 122F)
DMA, E" peak
55C (131F)
58C (136C)
Measurement
Heat Deflection
Temperature
Glass Transition, Tg
Density
1.19 g/cm3
44
Appendix F:
This is the survey that will be used to test human subjects and get feedback in order to
make necessary iterations.
Team 8-Berry Plastics
Survey of Disensing Lid Prototype
Please answer honestly, your opinions will be used to better the prototype.
Age:
Gender:
Do you know what the old lid of Johnson&Johnson Baby Oil Looked Like?
If yes, What looks different about the prototype vs. the original lid?
If no, does this in your opinion look like a baby oil lid and why?
Would you make any changes to the overall size of the cap?
Is the process needed to open the cap intuitive? If not, what would make it more intuitive?
Would you make any changes to the size of the tabs?
Is the force needed to move the tabs to much, to little, or just right?
Do you think a child under 3 years old could open this container and why?
Any other comments/suggestions?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated,
Please return to a Team 8 member or place in Team 8's box.
Ben Raab, Ken Cardillo, Patrice Hughes, Mike Washko
45
Appendix G:
This is the quote from ProtoCAM for the stereolithography prototype.
46
Appendix H:
Engineering Drawings of Test Specimens & Instron Mounting Block
47
48
49
Appendix I:
Tab Dimensions and Deflection Test Results
Tab Dimensions
W (in)
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
H (in)
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.588
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
Force
(lbs)
2
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
Deflection at
Force (in)
0.04
0.07
0.068
0.098
0.057
0.079
0.103
0.035
0.048
0.062
0.108
0.289
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.026
0.035
0.042
0.042
0.063
0.089
0.025
0.032
0.037
0.031
0.042
0.053
50
Location of
Force from
Tab Edge
(in)
0.18
0.18
0
0
0
0
0
0.186
0.186
0.186
0
0
0.145
0.145
0.145
0.19
0.19
0.19
0
0
0
0.18
0.18
0.18
0
0
0
End
deflection
(in)
0.0576
0.1009
0.0680
0.0980
0.0570
0.0790
0.1030
0.0497
0.0681
0.0880
0.1080
0.2890
0.0796
0.1195
0.1726
0.0463
0.0624
0.0748
0.0420
0.0630
0.0890
0.0428
0.0548
0.0633
0.0310
0.0420
0.0530
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
0.433
2
3
2
3
4
0.07
0.109
0.036
0.048
0.058
51
0
0
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.0700
0.1090
0.0641
0.0855
0.1033
Appendix J:
Standardized Child Test Instructions
1. Reclosable packages with closure liners shall be properly
resecured at least 72 hours prior to beginning the test to allow the
liner to ``take a set.''
2. All packages shall be handled so that no damage or jarring
will occur during storage or transportation. The packages shall not
be exposed to extreme conditions of heat or cold. The packages shall
be tested at room temperature.
3. The children shall have no overt physical or mental
handicaps. No child with a permanent or temporary illness, injury,
or handicap that would interfere with his/her effective
participation shall be included in the test.
4. The testing shall take place in a well-lighted location that
is familiar to the children and that is isolated from all
distractions.
5. Reclosable packages shall be opened and properly resecured
one time by the tester who will be conducting the test. The opening
and resecuring shall not be done in the presence of the children.
(In the adult-resecuring test, the tester must not open and resecure
the package prior to the test.)
6. The tester, or another adult, shall escort a pair of children
to the test area. The tester shall ask the two children to sit down
in chairs that are positioned so that there is no visual barrier
between the children and the tester.
7. The tester shall talk to the children to make them feel at
ease.
8. The children shall not be given the impression that they are
in a race or contest. They are not to be told that the test is a
game or that it is fun. They are not to be offered a reward.
9. The tester shall record all data prior to, or after, the test
so that full attention can be on the children during the test
period.
10. The tester shall use a stopwatch(s) to time the number of
seconds it takes the child to open the package and to time the 5minute test periods.
11. To begin the test, the tester shall hand the children
identical packages and say, ``PLEASE TRY TO OPEN THIS FOR ME.''
12. If a child refuses to participate after the test has
started, the tester shall reassure the child and gently encourage
the child to try. If the child continues to refuse, the tester shall
ask the child to hold the package in his/her lap until the other
child is finished. This pair of children shall not be eliminated
from the results unless the refusing child disrupts the
participation of the other child.
13. Each child shall be given up to 5 minutes to open his/her
package. The tester shall watch the children at all times during the
test. The tester shall minimize conversation with the children as
long as they continue to attempt to open their packages. The tester
shall not discourage the children verbally or with facial
expressions. If a child gets frustrated or bored and stops trying to
open his/her package, the tester shall reassure the child and gently
encourage the child to keep trying.
14. The children shall be allowed freedom of movement to work on
their packages as long as the tester can watch both children (e.g.,
they can stand up, get down on the floor, or bang or pry the
package).
15. If a child is endangering himself or others at any time, the
test shall be stopped and the pair of children eliminated from the
52
final results.
16. The children shall be allowed to talk to each other about
opening the packages and shall be allowed to watch each other try to
open the packages.
17. A child shall not be allowed to try to open the other
child's package.
18. If a child opens his/her package, the tester shall say,
``Thank You,'' take the package from the child and put it out of the
child's reach. The child shall not be asked to open the package a
second time.
19. At the end of the 5-minute period, the tester shall
demonstrate how to open the package if either child has not opened
his or her package. A separate ``demo'' package shall be used for
the demonstration.
20. Prior to beginning the demonstration, the tester shall ask
the children to set their packages aside. The children shall not be
allowed to continue to try to open their packages during the
demonstration period.
21. The tester shall say, ``WATCH ME OPEN MY PACKAGE.''
22. Once the tester gets the children's full attention, the
tester shall hold the demo package approximately two feet from the
children and open the package at a normal speed as if the tester
were going to use the contents. There shall be no exaggerated
opening movements.
23. The tester shall not discuss or describe how to open the
package.
24. To begin the second 5-minute period, the tester shall say,
``NOW YOU TRY TO OPEN YOUR PACKAGES.''
25. If one or both children have not used their teeth to try to
open their packages during the first 5 minutes, the tester shall
say, ``YOU CAN USE YOUR TEETH IF YOU WANT TO.'' This is the only
statement that the tester shall make about using teeth.
26. The test shall continue for an additional 5 minutes or until
both children have opened their packages, whichever comes first.
27. At the end of the test period, the tester shall say, ``THANK
YOU FOR HELPING.'' In addition, the tester shall say, ``NEVER OPEN
PACKAGES LIKE THIS WHEN YOU ARE BY YOURSELF. THIS KIND OF PACKAGE
MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING IN IT THAT WOULD MAKE YOU SICK.''
28. The children shall be escorted back to their classroom or
other supervised area by the tester or another adult.
29. If the children are to participate in a second test, the
tester shall have them stand up and stretch for a short time before
beginning the second test. The tester shall take care that the
children do not disrupt other tests in progress.
53
Appendix K
Failed Prototype
54