I'm reviewing an FR5 carton pattern. Rotated boxes bridge gaps against their support direction. Where should packaging and tool-access review meet?
Can our rotated FR5 cartons bridge these support gaps?
BenBennett0718 · 2026年7月26日 08:26 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
11 条回复
At the actual packed box, I'd say, before anyone promises that alternating automatically makes a stronger stack. Get packaging to mark the support requirements and tooling to show how it releases each position in the proposed order.
15分Packaging has the carton specification. I'll ask for the support marks on the layer drawing.
21分Include the tool opening and exit, because fitting the closed grip beside a box doesn't tell you whether it can let go and leave.
13分What's actually been assessed by now, Ben? Thread's been up a while. Don't want to talk you through a support review that packaging has already rejected.
5分No rejection yet. They've requested filled samples; their first marks show where evidence is needed.
-2分Is the intended packing orientation controlled upstream? A correct outer label may not establish how the contents were placed.
8分Leah, yes. Seen an insert treated as symmetric when it wasn't. Packaging should confirm the actual load path, not just draw arrows copied from the carton print.
14分Packing supervisor is checking that with the samples. Tooling has supplied release views; packaging assessment still outstanding.
6分Do those release views use the same layer revision packaging is checking?
5分They didn't. Thanks, Maya; I've sent the marked revision back before we compare conclusions.
18分Keep the mismatched view out of the meeting pack. Not because it is useless, but because otherwise half the room will point at the easier picture and think you've all reviewed the same stack.
3分