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