BenBench · 8 Feb 2025, 15:42 UTC
Does packaging specify support beneath those runners, or is that your interpretation?
15 pointsPackaging drawing calls them load-bearing runners. It doesn't show a pallet arrangement
21 pointsAsk packaging to approve the support arrangement. The runner label alone leaves some details unanswered.
18 pointsCheck the actual pallets too. Are the gaps where your neat drawing says they are? Our returns had several board layouts under one pallet description.
0 pointsThat matters. Thank you for flagging the pallet variation before we debate the second layer.
4 pointsYour tool still needs a clear approach and release at every placement. A packaging-approved stack can fail as a robot sequence. Put the carton underside, tool envelope and neighbouring cartons into the review together.
4 pointsIncluding the last carton in each layer, not just the easy first one.
21 pointsWe have two pallet board layouts in stores. I've sent both and the runner drawing to packaging. Tool supplier is checking the complete layer sequence
4 pointsCan I ask what tool you are considering? Side access requirements would make the placement order particularly relevant here.
10 pointsSide gripping concept at present. The runners were meant to leave space under the carton but we haven't chosen fingers
12 pointsThen clarify whether the concept relies on access beneath the carton or contact at its sides; those are different constraints, even if both use fingers.
4 pointsAnd neither concept should assume the carton tolerates the intended contact pressure without assessment.
11 pointsSupplier clarified side contact, no lifting fingers underneath. My mistake there. They've asked for packed cartons for a holding and release trial
7 pointsSend the real packed version, then. Empty cartons made our old trial look lovely and told us sod all about the load shifting inside.
17 pointsPackaging rejected one pallet layout for this carton, approved the other for a trial with aligned layers. That changes the original alternating pattern quite a bit
11 pointsAligned layers are a candidate, not an automatic transport solution. Packaging should evaluate the complete unit load and its restraint. The robot review then needs to use that same candidate, otherwise you'll be approving two different pallets on paper.
6 pointsYes. Trial approval is narrower than approval for dispatch.
7 pointsUnderstood. Nobody has cleared it for shipping. We now have one candidate pallet, actual packed samples and a tool trial booked, so at least we're testing the same thing
19 pointsHave you removed the rejected board layout from the trial stock? Easy to mix them again.
10 pointsAlso identify the pallet variant in the trial record, or rather in the setup specification that will follow it; stores needs something more precise than the approved one.
17 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .