I put our labelled dispatch cartons into an alternating layer drawing and it looked convincingly orderly, until packaging pointed out the support direction. Some rotated cartons sit across gaps. I'd like packaging and tooling to assess the same proposal; what actual support information should I put beside the outline?
I've seen the bottom flaps mistaken for the support structure because that was all the drawing showed. Ask packaging to mark the bearing regions for the packed carton and identify any permitted gaps beneath them. Then the tool designer has a constraint to work with, not just an arrow saying this way up.
Is the alternation required by dispatch, Rebecca, or did the layout software choose it? I can't tell whether changing that would upset a real requirement or just spoil a satisfying picture.
Jasper, dispatch copied an existing pattern rather than specifying alternation. Rosa, both label positions remain outward on the full layer. Luis, packaging has the packed-carton information; I have asked for the bearing regions on our drawing.
Rosa, did rehandling mean turning the whole pallet or lifting individual cartons? We had a quote once that counted neither as work, which made the proposed saving unusually easy to achieve.
Sam, yes for labels and understanding the pattern. I would keep the distinction explicit when someone photographs that arrangement for the purchase review; an empty-carton demonstration has a habit of gaining extra qualifications as it travels.
The annotated drawing arrived. It requires the two end bearing strips to sit on supported carton regions below; our rotated row crosses one gap under an end strip. Packaging has not allowed that bridging.
Would a single-direction candidate be worth drawing alongside it, Rebecca? I'm not claiming it stays stable, only that the existing count shouldn't prevent you asking packaging about another arrangement.
I would give tooling the rejected gap as well as the bearing strips. Otherwise they may propose finger space in exactly the region packaging has just said must remain supported. The reason for the restriction belongs with the geometry.
We now have a single-direction candidate on the drawing. It supports those strips in the full-layer view, but tooling says their proposed withdrawal enters the neighbouring carton space. I haven't called either layout feasible.
Their existing tool outline identifies the body clash, Sam. We have sent it back for an alternative proposal, with the bearing strips retained. The partial-order arrangement is also unanswered, so dispatch can't choose between these yet.
Rebecca, are you allowed to reduce cartons per layer in that proposal? I'd state whether that's available now; otherwise someone may spend another drawing keeping a count nobody actually requires.
Jasper's question is worth keeping separate from approval. A lower count could create room for the tool, but packaging would still need to assess the resulting support and stack, including those incomplete orders.