Date: Jan. 21, 1999
Attendees:
- Kevin Howard (HP)
- Derek Haines (Compaq)
- John Hayward (Republic)
- John Clarke (Va. Tech.)
- Perry Biancavilla (HP)
- Richard Black (AMP)
- Erich Guenter (IBM Germany)
- Bob Sanders (IBM)
Minutes:
Approval of last month's minutes: John Clarke wished to correct the comment regarding CHEP
pallets (new text bracketed). "CHEP is in the process of changing the grocery
industry to a block style pallet which is full perimeter bottom deck, wood, and weights 74
lbs. (33.6kg), 1.0 x 1.2m. [ CHEP already uses block and stringer style, trying to convert
more to block style." ] Stricken was the comment about VTU testing prototypes of CHEP
pallets.
Review of Action Items from Last Month's minutes:
1. Conference calls scheduled throughout 1999 on third Thursday of the month. These are
posted on the website. The only exception being February in which the meeting is scheduled
for Thursday evening, 2/25/99, 6-8pm in conjunction with TransPack. The dial in number
from the website is still valid but disregard the time and date currently listed. Action:
Paul Russell can update the schedule accordingly. Richard Black reported having difficulty
printing the schedule from the website. No other problems were reported. Bob Sanders
offered to e-mail or fax anything that anyone can't get directly from the website. Just
let him know.
2. The name EIPS is still valid and is an official task group underneath P2E2 subcommittee
of IoPP. No IoPP National recognition of EIPS is needed. Bob will follow-up with IoPP to
ensure that word gets out about our meeting at TransPack '99 in Orlando. You may have
already noticed the memo on PACKRND.
3. Industry Actions (ref. EIA): Richard Black has not been able to address this item but
will have some input in time for the February meeting. The purpose is to ensure that we
are not redoing work already completed or in progress by another group within our
industry.
Off-line, Alan Gilligan (Lucent Technologies), Chairman of MH-10 and US tag to ISO TC-122
among other committees offered his assistance and contacts as we saw fit to move the
project along. He recommended careful planning of the process in advance to include
whichever standards issuing bodies we intend to involve now rather than after-the-fact. We
can discuss this further next meeting.
4. Membership: Some of the names identified so far have not submitted membership forms.
Bob Sanders will e-mail them to confirm their intentions of being listed on the member
list. When complete the full spreadsheet will be submitted to Paul Russell for inclusion
on the website. The spreadsheet captures all data from the membership forms as well as a
growing list of suppliers and other industry players that may be useful to the team
eventually. Lead reps were identified for companies with more than one participant.
Considerable discussion followed regarding expansion of the group to include customer
representatives from major retailers, wholesalers, and distributors. As customers of major
computer manufacturers their needs must be considered. Actions: 1. Kevin Howard will seek
names from key retailers such as CompUSA, Circuit City, etc. 2. Erich Guenter will seek
names from key players in Europe, 3. Bob Sanders will seek names from key distributors in
the US such as those that responded to the earlier survey. Despite the potential risk of
the group getting too big and unwieldy, the risk is warranted since acceptance of a
standard throughout the industry should include all players from suppliers through
manufacturers to major customers. The entire integrated supply chain should be considered
in the analysis.
5. Communications: In general, all communications (minutes) will be posted via the
website. Of course, incidental e-mails will happen from time to time. Team members should
check the website frequently as new references are added.
6. There was some discussion about the merits of designing optimal pallets for each mode
of transportation vs. a single size with the best overall average. This creates an
interesting dilemma. Is our purpose to establish a "one size fits all" solution
or is it to establish a performance and design standard? I think we intended to do both.
Looking to other industries may provide a clue. For instance, chemical and automotive have
several sizes but have consistent design styles. There is also the specially designed
chamfered air pallet that HP uses to optimize space on 125x96" air pallets. I can
envision a 1200x1000mm
normal block style pallet and/or a version with the base inset slightly to achieve the
same purpose as the HP chamfered pallet for air cargo purposes. We already know that we
will have innumerable pallets which are custom sized for large products. It is also
possible that we would have within our "standard" both the 1200x1000mm and
1200x800mm sizes. Perhaps a single "preferred" size and several others which are
approved.
7. Kevin Howard (HP) also explained an interesting scenario in which printers are shipped
bulk on slipsheets and then given final packaging and palletization in the country in
which the products are consumed. When shipped by air if the carrier cannot handle
slipsheets (most air carriers won't) then the special chamfered pallet is used and the
size of this pallet is not included in the shipping cost.
Pros and Cons of Perimeter Base and Uni-directional Base pallets (From John Clarke, VTU):
Perimeter based pallets are a more "balanced" block pallet design. They offer
rackability in both directions and greater bottom deck coverage (lower psi on packaging
and more room for error when stacking). The outer blocks must be long enough to attach
both the outer and the bottom butted boards. There is more potential for pallet jack
damage since there are more bottom boards. When you open an electric pallet jack, no board
will stop the wheels, therefore the more bottom deck coverage the more likely boards will
be damaged.
Unidirectional base pallets offer easier entry from 2 sides. They are nestable for return
shipments. They are rackable in the direction parallel to the bottom deckboards, but offer
only limited rackability in the opposite direction. They are lighter than perimeter based
pallets.
Both designs have been used successfully throughout the world. There is no
"right" answer for the computer industry. Packaging, stack heights, etc. can be
adapted to whichever pallet base design is chosen. For a new pool, I would recommend the
more "balanced" perimeter base design due to the lower stacking pressures,
better stackability, and better rackability.
Bottom deck coverage (ranked in descending order by coverage percent):
Chep stringer pallet (48x40"). . . . . . . . . 57% Chep Block perimeter base pallet
(48x40"). . . 55% Typical GMA-type pallet (48x40") . . . . . . . 45% EuroPallet
unidirectional base (800x1200mm). . 43% 48x40" with unidirectional base 34 to 41%
I will fax a list of U.S. plastic pallet manufacturers later this week.
Please call if there are any questions.
John W. Clarke
Director
Virginia Tech's Center for Unit-Load Design 1650 Ramble Road
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Phone: (540) 231-5370
FAX: (540) 231-8868
Editor's Note (Bob Sanders): The analysis above is interesting because it demonstrates
that a unidirectional block pallet is not that much different than a typical stringer
pallet in terms of base coverage (only 4-11% less coverage). Therefore, if we have been
surviving thus far with stringer pallets without significant carton damage during stacking
we may be able to succeed with a uni-directional design. Regarding block designs. I have
seen on a number of occasions that the opening between the inside edges of the outer
blocks should be at least 27.5" (700mm). Also, the center block should be as narrow
as possible to allow access by pallet jacks that have been designed for half pallets. This
would mean the outer blocks on the 1000mm side would have to be 6" (150mm) or less.
This could affect the base coverage percentages listed above.
Key Discussion Items for Next Meeting:
1. Membership: Get reps from key suppliers or customers
2. Process: Linkages with various standards issuing bodies -- ANSI, ASTM, ISO, etc.
3. Size Analysis: Comparisons of space efficiency on various modes of transportation to
resolve one size fits all question
4. Materials: Wood, plastic, composites, etc. 5. Logistics: One way vs. Pool program
As before, if anything from these minutes does not match with your recollections, please
send me a note of explanation or bring it up at the next meeting.
Regards,
Bob Sanders
WDOS, Dept. VQZ, Bldg. 002-3, Office MM302 RTP, North Carolina, USA, 27709-2195
Phone: 919-543-1260, Fax: -4253 (IBM T/L: 441) email: btsander@us.ibm.com
IBM Intranet: w3.wwd.ibm.com/documentation/packaging