Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

WKRPT 300 – Testing Process for New Package Size Layout for
355 mL Can Variety Pack Sorting Machine
Report Prepared For:
The University of Waterloo

Prepared By:
Mayuran Sundaramohan
20848133
May 13th, 2022

Dr. Bill Owen

Associate Chair, Undergraduate Studies
Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1

To Dr. Bill Owen,

This report, entitled “Testing Process for New Package Size Layout for 355 mL Can Variety
Pack Sorting Machine”, was prepared as my 3A work term report. The report aims to outline a
project that I took on over my last co-op placement at PepsiCo at the Mississauga facility as a
Production Co-op Student. I was assigned to coordinate trial runs for the existing sorting
machine for the variety pack production line and provide feedback for next steps in order to
commission the line for a new package layout.

The project was initially proposed by the Operations and Supply Planning Departments from the
PepsiCo Canada headquarters with the goal of cutting costs associated with using third-party
facilities to produce these variety pack products, and to improve the turn-around time between
initial production of the canned beverages and the products being stocked in stores.

This report was written entirely by me and has not received any previous academic credit at this
or any other institution. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Taranjeet Banghu and Ms. Addison
Bignold who presented me with this project near the beginning of my work term and assisted
with communications with the sorting machine manufacturers to request support from their
technicians. I would also like to acknowledge the Production Teams and Supervisors who
provided me with empirical evidence and guidance to prepare these trial runs.

Best Regards,

Mayuran Sundaramohan
Student ID: 20848133
3A Mechanical Engineering

ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Definition................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Background Information ....................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Observations during Phase 1 of Testing ................................................................................... 8
2.1 Action Items for Phase 1 of Testing ................................................................................... 11
3.0 Observations during Phase 2 of Testing ................................................................................. 11
3.1 Action Items from Phase 2 of Testing ................................................................................ 14
3.3 Outcomes of Phase 2 Action Items ..................................................................................... 14
4.0 Productivity Comparison between 3 and 4 Flavour SKUs ..................................................... 15
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 18
References ..................................................................................................................................... 19

iii
List of Figures

Figure 1: View of Sorting Machine and Exit Conveyors ............................................................... 5

Figure 2: Arrangement of 3 and 4 Flavour 24-can Variety Packs .................................................. 5
Figure 3: Gantry Assembly with 1x6 Gantry Heads Showing Pressure Displays .......................... 6
Figure 4: Dried and Cracked Suction Pad on the 2x4 Gantry Head ............................................... 9
Figure 5: 1x6 Suction Pads with Worn-out Adhesive .................................................................. 10
Figure 6: Horizontal Misalignment of 1x6 Gantry Heads on Cans .............................................. 13
Figure 7: Operator’s View of Gantry Head Misalignment ........................................................... 13

iv
Summary

This report will outline the steps taken to prepare the Variety Pack Sorting Machine for a new

package layout which uses four flavours to make a 24-pack case of 355 mL cans. Currently, the

machine only runs the 24-pack SKU with three flavours for the Bubly Sparkling Water variety

packs. This package layout has eight cans per flavour in each case, whereas the new layout with

four flavours will have only six cans per flavour. This means the sorting machine will need a

different gantry head assembly to arrange the cans in different groupings and will be moving the

cans in a different sequence than before.

The purpose of these trial runs is to iron out any kinks with running a sequence that has not had a

full run in over five years, and to ensure that a full run will be favourable from a supply chain

perspective. This means the machine must run at a high enough efficiency rate to warrant

running this package layout instead of the current three-flavour packs which run at a very high

efficiency. If the efficiency of the new line is too low, the lack of production of the other SKUs

will not outweigh the cost savings of running the new variety pack at the Falbourne facility.

After running two rounds of trial runs, two sets of adjustments were made to the sorting machine

to improve its running efficiency. First, the gantry head assemblies that are used to pick the cans

up were replaced because they were very old and worn out and could not form a seal to build

enough suction pressure to pick up the cans safely. Secondly, technicians from the manufacturer

were called in to adjust the sorting sequence can positions to improve the alignment of the gantry

heads over the cans and increase the likelihood of a successful pick. The result of these changes

was a drastic improvement in the frequency of faults and errors registered by the machine. It was

v
able to run several cycles consecutively without any errors, with the faults occurring about once

every five cycles. The length of downtime caused by each fault was also reduced, which

improved the theoretical efficiency of the line running the new SKU.

The decision as to the final steps needed to get the line to be able to run the new package layout

at an acceptable efficiency was to fine tune the assembly of the gantry heads and lateral position

values. This is expected to further reduce the frequency of faults registered by the machine by

allowing more buffer room for misalignment of cans in the sorting area without getting a failed

pick. After one more trial run with the same rate of improvements, the machine is expected to be

able to run the four flavour variety packs at an acceptable efficiency to schedule a full run.

vi
1.0 Introduction

Pepsi Beverages Canada is a branch under PepsiCo which produces all of the company's bottled

and canned beverage products such as Pepsi, 7UP, Crush Orange, Mug Root Beer, and the

Schweppes flavours, Ginger Ale, Club Soda, and Tonic Water. They also produce the Bubly

Sparkling Water and Gatorade lines, Brisk, and Aquafina bottled water. Other facilities beyond

the Mississauga plant also produce the Dole fruit juices and Evian Bottled water.

The Mississauga facility has a total of seven production lines. The first line is a standard can line

producing only 355 mL cans across all of the main flavours. This is also the only line producing

Bubly sparkling water flavours. Line two is the flex can line which is capable of producing 222

mL, 355 mL, and 473 mL cans. Most of the standard flavours such as Pepsi, 7UP, Crush Orange,

as well as their Diet varieties, and the Schweppes flavours are produced in 222 mL cans. Since

the acquisition of Rockstar Energy, the 473 mL cans were used to make the energy drinks, as

well as some limited time offers of flavours like Crush Orange, Dr Pepper, and Bubly Mango

using the King Can marketing campaigns.

There are two cold-fill bottle lines, one for 500 mL and 710 mL products, and another for 1L, 1.5

L Aquafina, and 2L products. There is one hot-fill bottle line used exclusively for Gatorade

products, which need to be dispensed at near-boiling temperatures. This is because they have

higher sugar contents and are more prone to contamination. The higher temperatures discourage

any bacterial or fungal growth when exposed to the air between the filler and the closure

machine [1] [2]. The bottle lines will be less relevant to this report. Finally, there is a line for

fountain drinks sold to stores and restaurants to use in their soft-drink fountain machines. The

1
fountain drink line produces mostly standard flavours like Pepsi, 7UP, and Crush Orange, and

occasionally produces specialty flavours exclusively for this packaging format such as Brisk

Blackberry Lemonade.

The co-pack or Variety Pack line will be the focus of this report. This line takes already made

cases of 355 mL can products and sorts them into packs with multiple flavours. The primary

products for this line at the Mississauga plant are the two versions of Bubly variety packs. There

are two SKUs, both of which are 24 cans, with three flavours. The variety pack line will be the

main focus of this report.

1.1 Problem Definition

Pepsi Bottling Group sells variety packs of the 355 mL cans in the 24 and 32-pack sizes

containing Crush Orange, Crush Grape, Cream Soda, and Mug Root Beer. Currently, these

products are made in Mississauga on the standard can lines and sent to co-packing third-party

facilities to be manually sorted into the variety packs. This costs the company money not only to

pay fees associated with hiring another facility to sort the product, but also warehouse fees due

elongating the turn-around time needed from when the product gets batched to when it gets

stocked in stores is available to customers. There are also added transport costs of moving the

product between the Mississauga plant, the sorting facility, and then to the warehouses before

being stocked, rather than being shipped directly to the warehouses.

2
1.2 Objective

The objective of this report is to outline the testing process that was used to prepare the current

variety pack line to run a new package layout. Currently the variety pack line only produces a

24-pack three flavour SKU, which is being evaluated to expand to both a 24 and 32-pack four

flavour package. The primary difference between the two package layouts for the sorting

machine is ensuring the machine is capable of running the new sorting sequence effectively and

efficiently and overcoming common faults during sorting. Once implemented, this new SKU on

the variety pack will bring significant cost savings for the company and improve turn-around

times for products to be stocked in stores.

1.3 Background Information

The variety pack sorting machine has two main segments that operators interact with in order to

produce finished products. The first section has lanes with roller conveyors that allow up to 35

cases per lane to be preloaded before being fed into the sorting area. The roller conveyors allow

operators to load cases onto the lanes “in bulk” and then focus their attention on the shrink

wrapper or the palletizer, rather than having someone constantly loading un-sorted cases into the

machine. The roller conveyors allow the conveyor to run at a constant speed and simply use

retractable blockers to hold the cases in place before being sent into the sorting area. This

eliminates the need for complex sensor systems and wiring that would introduce new areas for

errors and faults and improves the running efficiency of the line.

The sorting area is comprised of two gantries, with two gantry heads each, which means the

sorting machine is able to sort 4 sets of cases at a time. This means the machine is able to

3
produce twelve cases of products per cycle for the three flavour packages, or 16 cases for the

four flavour packs. Each gantry head has a contact surface made of rubber with holes in it that

are connected to a vacuum system. The machine uses suction to pick the cans up and uses a

system of motors and belts to move the gantry heads laterally in the sorting area, leaving the

cardboard trays that the cans are packaged in stationary.

The lanes of conveyors leading into the sorting machine need to be manually loaded by operators

and have two sensors per lane near the sorting machine to ensure there are enough cases to begin

a new sorting cycle. This process is quite inefficient as it may take two operators up to five

minutes to load the lanes fully. In the event the machine runs out of cases and the operators are

occupied resolving other issues on the line, this will cause significant downtime for the sorting

machine and will negatively impact the lines productivity. The ideal solution would be to have

an automatic depalletizing machine that loads the lanes; however, this will not be the main focus

of this report.

The exit conveyors after the sorting area in the machine send each set of cases onto a

bidirectional conveyor, shown in Figure 1, that sends the sorted cases towards the wrapper, then

to the palletizer to be stacked and sent to the warehouse before being shipped out to distribution

centres and retailers. The next two machines run at a higher speed than the sorting machine

which ensures it rarely needs to stop due to bottle-necks on the line.

4
 Figure 1: View of Sorting Machine and Exit Conveyors

The three flavour 24-pack cases have gantry heads that pick cans up in a two-by-four

arrangement as shown in Figure 2. This splits each case of 24 cans, which are arranged six by

four, into three groups of eight cans arranged two by four. The machine takes three cases of

unsorted product, one of each flavour, and rearranges the cans so that each case ends up with 8

cans of each flavour. For the four flavour variety packs, the unsorted cases are arranged

identically to the three flavour cases, but the groupings of flavours are one by six instead.

Figure 2: Arrangement of 3 and 4 Flavour 24-can Variety Packs

5
The sorting sequence starts by first moving one group of cans onto a holding area on the side of

the machine. The gantry heads use servomotors and belts to travel horizontally to a pre-

determined distance, then descend until the suction pads contact the cans. This is also measured

using a pre-determined distance and does not use any sensors to detect contact. Then the machine

turns on an air pump that uses suction to pick up the cans and move them around. The machine

has pressure gauges that register a successful ‘pick’ once it detects 8 psi of vacuum pressure. The

live vacuum pressure of each gantry is displayed on a small LED screen on the gantry heads, as

shown in Figure 3. The sorting machine has four available pre-set package sizes and layouts to

choose from, each of which can run at a speed of eight, twelve, or sixteen packs per minute.

Figure 3: Gantry Assembly with 1x6 Gantry Heads Showing Pressure Displays

Some common faults for the sorting machine are failing to pick up cans due to insufficient

vacuum pressure, dropping a can during horizontal or vertical travel, and cases being misaligned.

6
Sometimes the machine will not detect if only one can of a group was not picked up and will

only show an error when the next set of cans crashes into the cans left behind from a previously

failed pick attempt. This issue is a particularly risky one as it has the chance to damage suction

pads on the gantries, push the servo motors or belts out of alignment, or bend the support

structures. This puts a significant onus on the operators to be aware of any failed picks that do

not get registered by the machine to prevent any risk of damage.

After being sorted, the cases are sent by conveyors to a machine that wraps each case in shrink

film and sends it through an oven for the film to secure the cans in place. The cases then go to a

palletizer to get stacked up onto pallets 9 cases to a layer before being sent to the warehouse. The

9-case layout is common to all 24 pack products, as the cases are the same size and the pallets

used on all the production lines are identical. This layout leaves a vertical section in the centre of

each pallet empty, meaning the space is not being used optimally in terms of product per unit

volume. However, it would be impractical to choose a more space-efficient layout at the cost of

having pallets fall apart due to unbalanced products.

Some experienced operators on the variety pack line mentioned there were some features on the

cases of unsorted products that were good indicators of whether the machine would have trouble

picking up the cans [3]. One of these was how level the heights of all the cans in a case were. If

there was a visible difference in the height of some cans in a case due to the cans being sunken

into the cardboard below, the suction pads would have a higher frequency of not making a good

seal for the pressure to reach 8 psi. This often happened during very humid weather where the

7
cardboard was not as rigid, so the operators knew that cases made during the night shifts on the

standard lines would be better for the variety pack.

Another indicator of troublesome cases was the horizontal misalignment of cans. This happens

due to a combination of cardboard trays that were slightly out of spec for production, but not far

enough out to get a refund from the supplier, or when the clear saran wrap used to wrap the

pallets after production was applied too tightly [3]. In both cases, if the horizontal distance of the

cans from their expected position was too large, the rims of the cans would stick out a few

millimetres beyond the suction pads thereby ruining any chance of generating enough vacuum

pressure to pick up the cans. The operators also suggested that careless handling of the pallets by

forklift drivers could cause this misalignment as well but was less common than the first two

causes.

2.0 Observations during Phase 1 of Testing

The Mississauga facility already had the two-by-four gantry heads needed for the four flavour

packages available as they were included in the original order for the variety pack sorting

machine when it was commissioned several years back. According to the operator, a small trial

runs for each of the package sizes and layouts were done during the commissioning runs and

were successful [3]. However, those other package sizes other than the 24 can three flavour

packs had not been used since then, and it was crucial to ensure the line would run smoothly and

efficiently before committing to large production runs to the supply chain department.

8
The operators consulted the documentation used from the initial trials and it was decided that it

would be best to start off at the slowest speed in order to observe any possible flaws in the

machine code and to minimize damage in the event of any major faults. After running the first

cycle, the machine failed to pick up two cans on the second pick, even though the first pick

worked fine. The operators then inspected all the cases and noted that none of them had cans that

deviated significantly compared to their expected heights and horizontal positions. The cases

were then cleared from the machine and a new cycle was initiated.

After five repetitions, there had not been a single successful cycle and the trial run was stopped.

Upon inspection of the equipment, there were several noticeable issues with the gantries. Two of

the gantries had metal plates that were bent, and all but one gantry head had damaged suction

pads. A few of them had cracks in them due to the rubber becoming brittle after years of being

unused, and a few others had peeled off of the gantries because the glue had worn down. The

sorting sequence appeared to be correct, but it could not be determined confidently as there were

no successful sorting cycles completed.

Figure 4: Dried and Cracked Suction Pad on the 2x4 Gantry Head

9
 Figure 5: 1x6 Suction Pads with Worn-out Adhesive

Often times the failure to pick just one can out of the six intended to be moved, the machine did

not register any faults and continued the cycle as if nothing was wrong. When the gantries

moved the next group of cans to their new spots, one or two of the cans from the previously

failed pick would still be in their original spots. When the gantries descended with the new group

of cans, they would crash into the existing cans and register a fault. This was especially

worrisome as the gantry assemblies were being subjected to severe impacts that could have

damaged the moving parts and motors.

10
2.1 Action Items for Phase 1 of Testing

Due to the overwhelmingly outdated equipment and the inability to test a full sorting sequence

on the new package layout, it was decided that the first step towards a successful trial run would

be to order replacement parts from the manufacturer to replace the worn parts. After consulting

with the Plant Manager, an order was placed to replace all four gantry head assemblies for the

1x6 gantries. These assemblies included the suction pads, plastic housings, replacement

fasteners, and the attachment port for the suction system.

The goal of replacing the worn-out equipment was that the machine would be able to complete a

full sorting sequence without any faults which would allow the operators to observe the moving

parts in operation and advise the manufacturers and technicians of any risks of damage.

3.0 Observations during Phase 2 of Testing

During the second phase of trials, the newly replaced gantry heads were able to make successful

picks much more consistently. On average the gantries were getting failed picks about once or

twice per cycle as opposed to every other pick attempt. Often times, one gantry was able to

complete a full cycle without any faults, however the other gantry still stopped part way through

the sequence due to failed picks. There was no obvious trend of which gantry was more inclined

to perform a successful cycle as the faults appeared randomly. The failed attempts at picking up

cans were also registered by the machine more often, and in turn there were no occurrences of

cans crashing into each other due to unregistered failed picks across a trial of about 15 sorting

sequences. This major improvement on the frequency of failed pick attempts suggested that the

11
worn-out equipment was a significant contributor to the rate of faults when running the new

flavour layout trials.

During this phase of trials, the machine tended to fail to pick up any cans at all more often than

just leaving one can behind the way it did in the first trial run. This was an indicator that the

vacuum was not able to produce the minimum pressure of 8 psi to pick up the cans. Taking the

radius of the rim of the cans to be about 1.2 inches, this means the surface area affected by the

vacuum pressure is about 4.5 square inches. This means the cans are being lifted with about 36 lb

of suction force per can [4].

Although it may seem unnecessary to require that much pressure to pick up cans weighing just

under a pound based on measurements using a scale, the operators suggested that it was a

precautionary feature that was intended to improve line efficiency [3]. It was foreseeable that the

jerking motion of raising the gantries after a pick or travelling laterally and stopping suddenly

could cause cans to drop and during travel which would have caused downtime in excess of 10

minutes. The operators would need to manually replace the cans to their correct positions as if

they had not fallen and resume the sequence or clear the conveyors and manually sort all the cans

afterwards, which would reduce the total case count per hour of the line. For this reason, the

manufacturers implemented the 8-psi threshold to ensure that this type of fault would be

minimized, even when running at the highest speed of 16 packs per minute [5].

In other cases, there were horizontal gaps where the rims of the cans would stick out beyond the

edge of the suction pad, which resulted in the same issue as before of not having enough vacuum

12
pressure to meet the 8-psi threshold. These instances of misaligned cans are shown in Figures 6

and 7, where the cans are not perfectly centred under the suction pads and a small amount of the

rims of the cans stick out beyond the edges of the pads. When this happens, the suction pads are

unable to form a strong seal and the machine is not able to reach the vacuum pressure threshold.

Figure 6: Horizontal Misalignment of 1x6 Gantry Heads on Cans

Figure 7: Operator’s View of Gantry Head Misalignment

13
3.1 Action Items from Phase 2 of Testing

Since the machine uses pre-determined position values and servomotors to move the gantry

heads, the first solution was to call in technicians from the manufacturer to validate and update

these values based on the requirements of the Crush products. This would include setting the

optimal height to achieve some compression of the suction pads without risk of breaking the

cans. It would also include lateral travel positions to ensure the cans were relatively centred

under the suction pads to ensure there was enough buffer on either side for some margin of error

that would still result in forming a sufficient seal for the vacuum pressure to reach the threshold.

Eventually, these adjustments would be taken over under regularly scheduled maintenance of the

machine by Pepsi mechanics and electricians rather than calling in technicians.

The operators also suggested that imperfections in the packaging of the cans from the standard

lines could also cause some variances in the alignment of the cans within the cardboard trays and

the position of the trays in the lanes. For example, if the cases were wrapped too tightly on the

pallets this could cause some deformation of the trays causing some cans to be slightly further

forward or backward in the lane as seen from the front. This issue was especially common in the

three flavour packs during the summer months when the humidity was higher, as the cardboard

was more likely to deform when damp.

3.3 Outcomes of Phase 2 Action Items

After having the technicians adjust the pick heights and horizontal row positions, the lateral

alignment improved dramatically based on visual inspection. However, as seen in the Figures X

and X the alignment issues where the seal was not formed properly were in the front/back

14
direction. This issue could not be addressed with position-value adjustments as the machine does

not have any motors driving the gantries in those directions.

The assumption was that either there were some imperfections in the gantry head assembly when

the new gantries were installed, or that the tolerances for the size of the suction pads and gantry

heads were too small and did not account for small variances in the position of the cans in the

lane. In either case, the only way to solve this would be to rebuild the gantry heads, and possibly

use slightly larger parts to allow more buffer room on the front or back of the cases where a seal

would still be formed if the cans were imperfectly positioned. Seeing as this issue was most

likely due to installation error by the manufacturer, it is not expected for Pepsi to incur any

additional costs to correct it.

Due to these issues, the sorting machine is unable to run the four flavour 24 can variety packs at

a rate that is favourable to schedule a full run at the expense of not running the three flavour

products. The reduced efficiency of the line would far outweigh the benefits of not having to

send the unsorted packages to a third-party facility for sorting before being sent to warehouses.

This comparison will be discussed in the following section.

4.0 Productivity Comparison between 3 and 4 Flavour SKUs

During the first two phases of trial runs for the four flavour 24 pack cases, there were significant

improvements to the frequency of faults encountered by the sorting machine, as well as the

downtime incurred from each fault. After the second round of adjustments, the faults resulting in

down time over ten minutes were almost entirely eliminated, leaving only faults requiring about

15
a minute of down time each. However, the faults were far too frequent to warrant a full

production run over multiple shifts.

When running the standard three flavour variety packs, the production line is able to produce

about 6000-7500 cases per day assuming there is no major down time (due to scheduled

maintenance) or staffing shortages. On average, the operators reported about 5-10 instances of

faults over the course of a day, most of which cause between one and five minutes of down time

for the line. This includes stops due to faults at the wrapper and palletizer machines as well, not

only the sorting machine. This line runs for one shift of 8 hours per day. At the maximum speed

of 16 cases per minute over 8 hours, the theoretical yield of the line at 100% efficiency would be

about 7680 cases per day. Assuming an average of about 6800 cases per day, this means the line

is running at about 88% efficiency on an average day. For context, the standard can line and

bottle lines have an average target of 72.5% efficiency and fluctuate between 60% and 90% from

day to day. Some of these variations can be attributed to out-of-spec raw materials that do not

qualify for returns, products with above or below average sugar concentrations, staffing

shortages causing inefficiency in the lines, or missed maintenance work that could risk damaging

the equipment if run at capacity without replacing wear parts. 6800 cases at twelve cases per

cycle means the machine performs about 567 cycles per day.

For the four flavour variety packs, the frequency of faults causing down time in excess of two

minutes is about once every five cycles. At a speed of 16 cases per minute, this means the sorting

machine is performing one cycle per minute, because the machine has four lanes and four gantry

heads instead of just three lanes. So, over an eight-hour shift, this machine could theoretically

16
produce about 480 cycles, which works out to the same 7680 cases per day. However, if one in

every five cycles is causing a fault and using up about the same amount of time as another cycle,

the machine is only able to produce about four cycles (or 64 cases) every six minutes. This works

out to about 320 cycles per day, or about 5120 cases per day.

Considering 5120 cases per day, the line would be running at about 66.7% efficiency. This also

doesn’t include things like staffing shortages, faults causing extended down times, unexpected

breakages, or other factors that may negatively impact the efficiency of the line. This number can

be comfortably expected to fluctuate between 40% and 80%. Since the line is not relying on very

many machines and is not impacted by very long runs of the same flavour, it is not foreseeable

that the efficiency would fluctuate as much positively as the other production lines. However, the

negative fluctuations will still be present as those are not often correlated with the length of a

production run.

Due to company policies declaring capital expense purchase orders to be confidential, the cost of

the replacement gantry assemblies and hiring technicians to troubleshoot the sorting machine

were not disclosed.

17
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

After conducting two rounds of trials for the Variety Pack sorting machine, the variety pack line

is now much closer to being able to run the 24 can four flavour variety packs at an acceptable

efficiency rate. The issues found with the machine have largely been resolved, and the machine

should be able to complete a commissioning run of the four flavour variety packs in the coming

months. The final steps before this run are to rebuild or modify the gantry heads to increase the

chances of a successful vacuum seal by either re-assembling the gantry heads and/or using larger

suction pads. Once this is done, it would be advisable to have an extended trial over several

hours to ensure the rate of faults incurred by the machine will not impact the efficiency of the

line. This will also allow the operators and supervisors to observe the machine in operation to

fine tune any machine settings to optimize any of the position or speed settings to improve

efficiency. If the extended trial run demonstrates the machine is able to run at above a 70%

efficiency, a full run of the four flavour packs will be possible.

18
References

[1] R. A. Bourque, "Hot-Fill Technology," in Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology

(3rd Edition), Massachusetts, Wiley Encyclopedia, 2009, pp. 576-580.
[2] MJS Packaging, "How Does Hot Fill Technology Work," MJS Packaging, 5 Octover 2014.
[Online]. Available: https://www.mjspackaging.com/blog/how-does-hot-fill-technology-
work/. [Accessed 4 May 2022].
[3] G. Clemente, Interviewee, Operator. [Interview]. February - April 2022.
[4] Dimensions.com, "Beverage Can - 12oz," 19 December 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.dimensions.com/element/beverage-can-12-
oz#:~:text=The%20Beverage%20Can%20(12%20oz)%20has%20an%20overall%20height%
20of,12%20oz%20(355%20mL).. [Accessed 4 May 2022].
[5] K. Zhou, Interviewee, Conveyor Technician. [Interview]. 9 February 2022.

19