LindaBailey · 2 Mar 2025, 00:41 UTC
Put the specified support edges onto both layer drawings first. That should expose the disagreement without anyone needing to debate whether the stack looks sturdy from across the room.
22 pointsDone. Two upper positions miss the specified support areas. Designer suggested filling the gaps with extra cartons.
22 pointsThat is another pattern to assess, not an automatic fix. Check its overall footprint and tool access as well; I don't know whether the extra positions are usable in your arrangement.
9 pointsHow will a partial final layer be handled? The approved pattern needs a defined end-of-order case. Otherwise the operator will decide what counts as enough support when the carton count runs short.
7 pointsYep, bring that into the review. A full-layer drawing doesn't cover every pallet your shift will actually produce.
18 pointsAlso confirm that the support requirement belongs to this carton construction and load. Similar external cases can behave differently, so the packaging approval should identify the product and carton revision it covers.
0 pointsAnd if a revised pattern needs a different tool, cost and review that actual option before calling it the winner.
15 pointsPackaging and tooling rejected the gap-filling suggestion. We have a simpler candidate with fewer cartons, still awaiting the handling trial plan. Partial layers are now included in the requirements.
6 pointsDid the lower-count version fit the dispatch workflow? I'd be curious whether they preferred it once pallet movements were included, rather than only cases per layer.
11 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .