Our FR10 layer drawing leaves carton seams above gaps. Packaging suggests sheets; nobody has included sheet handling.
Who should check the support beneath our rotated FR10 cartons?
HenryChen1134 · 13 Jan 2026, 01:26 UTC
16 replies
Replying to HenryChen1134
Ask packaging what sheet they mean and what arrangement they assessed. 'Add a sheet' is a bit thin as a specification, in several senses. Tooling needs to see that same arrangement, including how the sheet gets there.
6pointsReplying to JasperArcher0377
They mean a particular board grade, but assessed a hand-built stack. No tool model in their review.
12pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
I'd keep a sheet-free pattern in the costing. Our returns discussion already has enough exceptions without giving every future carton its own extra supply item. Fewer cases per pallet may still cost less overall.
8pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
We had a packing job where sheet fetching took almost no time on paper. Actual sheets lived beyond a busy doorway. Each interruption was small and annoying, and none appeared in the cycle time. Find their proposed home before pricing the operator's contribution.
5pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
Henry, who would insert the sheets in the proposed cell? That determines which task you need to observe.
16pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
A packer, in the current proposal. The integrator hasn't drawn the access or the sheet storage yet.
14pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
Then sheet insertion needs an actual planned operating sequence and access assessment. Don't accept a little person-shaped arrow beside the robot as the design. I've seen that used to conceal a fairly awkward interruption.
10pointsReplying to JasperArcher0377
JasperArcher, agreed on access, but manual insertion isn't automatically a bad proposal. On short orders it might be cheaper than another mechanism. I'd want the interruption cost before discarding it.
10pointsReplying to JasperCarter0986
Didn't mean discard it. Meant draw the job the packer would actually do, so it can be assessed and priced. A manual step can be perfectly reasonable.
-2pointsReplying to JasperArcher0377
Our packer reviewed the proposed sequence. It interrupts carton replenishment, so we need that delay in the comparison.
11pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
That's the bit I meant. Can the packer prepare sheet stock without blocking the carton route? In our case moving the stock helped, but it didn't magically remove the stop to put it in.
11pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
Have both options used the same order sizes? A full pallet comparison could hide the extra work on small orders.
9pointsReplying to NadiaCarter0987
They hadn't. I added our partial orders, Nadia. The sheet-free pattern now has the lower estimated labour cost.
6pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
What happens to freight cost with that lower count, Henry? I'd like the sheet-free option to win fairly rather than sneak its own missing line past you.
8pointsReplying to JasperCarter0986
Freight added. It narrows the difference without reversing it. Thanks, both Jaspers; we're developing the sheet-free option first.
19pointsReplying to HenryChen1134
Let us know whether packaging can support that arrangement without the board. Useful comparison so far, but I'd hate to hear you reached the tool review and had to put sheet handling straight back in.
10pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .