rotating the cartons moves the support feet off the boards

BenBench · 8 Feb 2025, 15:42 UTC

Closed
BE
BenBench
I'm planning pallet layers for our FR5 and the box drawing hid two cardboard runners underneath each carton. Rotate the second layer and some runners land over gaps. The pattern looks stable from above, which isn't much comfort now

20 replies

RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to BenBench

Does packaging specify support beneath those runners, or is that your interpretation?

15points
BE
BenBench
Replying to RaviCarter0998

Packaging drawing calls them load-bearing runners. It doesn't show a pallet arrangement

21points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to BenBench

Ask packaging to approve the support arrangement. The runner label alone leaves some details unanswered.

18points
MI
MinaBennett0772
Replying to BenBench

Check the actual pallets too. Are the gaps where your neat drawing says they are? Our returns had several board layouts under one pallet description.

0points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to MinaBennett0772

That matters. Thank you for flagging the pallet variation before we debate the second layer.

4points
LU
LucyBrown0915
Replying to BenBench

Your 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.

4points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to LucyBrown0915

Including the last carton in each layer, not just the easy first one.

21points
BE
BenBench
Replying to MinaBennett0772

We 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

4points
HA
HarishAllen0315
Replying to BenBench

Can I ask what tool you are considering? Side access requirements would make the placement order particularly relevant here.

10points
BE
BenBench
Replying to HarishAllen0315

Side gripping concept at present. The runners were meant to leave space under the carton but we haven't chosen fingers

12points
HA
HarishAllen0315
Replying to BenBench

Then clarify whether the concept relies on access beneath the carton or contact at its sides; those are different constraints, even if both use fingers.

4points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to HarishAllen0315

And neither concept should assume the carton tolerates the intended contact pressure without assessment.

11points
BE
BenBench
Replying to HarishAllen0315

Supplier clarified side contact, no lifting fingers underneath. My mistake there. They've asked for packed cartons for a holding and release trial

7points
MI
MinaBennett0772
Replying to BenBench

Send the real packed version, then. Empty cartons made our old trial look lovely and told us sod all about the load shifting inside.

17points
BE
BenBench
Replying to RaviCarter0998

Packaging 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

11points
LU
LucyBrown0915
Replying to BenBench

Aligned 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.

6points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to LucyBrown0915

Yes. Trial approval is narrower than approval for dispatch.

7points
BE
BenBench
Replying to LucyBrown0915

Understood. 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

19points
RA
RaviCarter0998
Replying to BenBench

Have you removed the rejected board layout from the trial stock? Easy to mix them again.

10points
HA
HarishAllen0315
Replying to RaviCarter0998

Also 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.

17points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .