Hershey Foods uses Bosch Rexroth digital servo drives, high-speed motion and logic controls and AC servos with absolute feedback on its high-speed flow wrapping machines.

The Next Generation

Automation addresses everything from throughput to maintenance, but is it really the answer to an efficient packaging line?

By Melanie D.G. Kaplan

As one of the most powerful trends to hit consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies in recent years, automation isn’t known for its subtlety. It is a force that affects everything in its path, from labor needs to throughput. Once a packaging line becomes automated, there’s no turning back, in the same way that one wouldn’t consider downgrading from a personal computer to an electronic typewriter. An automated machine—that is, one with sensors and servo motion control—can provide an end user with shorter cycle times, increased throughput, automatic and faster changeover, gentler product handling, advanced diagnostics, corrosion-resistant equipment for food processing areas and smarter systems. The machines are cleaner, quieter, faster, more precise and smaller than their predecessors. In fact, automation as a reliable technological advancement is so convincing that one would be hard pressed to find many packaging engineers debating its merit these days.

“For the most part, it’s not a question of people believing that automation can provide better machine efficiency,” says Rob Aleksa, corporate engineering machine control section head for Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati. “We don’t spend a lot of time justifying whether automation could provide value. The question is whether the project or initiative can afford it—along with other factors—and that comes back to what folks think will be the return of the product itself.”

So, what is it about this current wave of automation that makes it so widely accepted and cherished? What makes original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and controls suppliers gush with pride and end users praise their newly automated machinery as though it were the answer to their most pressing problems? (Because for many companies, it is.) Primarily the answer revolves around timing. Automation comes during a period when corporations are facing several pressures: from management (for increased productivity and more versatility); from customers (for unique package sizes, as demanded by club stores and super stores); and from consumers (for packages that are convenient, easy to use and that come in new and exciting shapes and sizes). And voila! A new generation of automation rolls out and addresses all of these issues at once.

 

Automation 101

Keith Campbell, a retired 28-year veteran of Hershey Foods, has a rule for software: Never install anything until its third release. “The first tries out the idea, the second tries to fix problems with the idea, and the third one seems to get it all together and get it right,” Campbell says. “Automation is the same thing.” Indeed, with the most recent generation of automation, technology has ironed out most of the kinks and now it appeals to a broader market of users.

The first packaging automation hit the market in the early 1990s and generally used one main motor with gearboxes, chains and pulleys to transmit power and torque where it was needed. It was a non-servo mechanical machine (or, at most, had one or two servos) that may or may not have had variable speed drives. This technology required hours for changeovers and was inflexible, unsanitary and costly to maintain.

A hybrid mechanical machine rolled out in 1995. This automation improved flexibility and changeover time, but it was just as unsanitary as the original technology and was comparable in cost and maintenance requirements. It used mostly mechanical automation, but included some early attempts at applying servo technology for certain critical motions. These machines, Campbell says, tended to be overly complex and sometimes more expensive and more difficult to work with than less-automated models. “It really wasn’t the way to go,” he says. “But it did provide end users some servo drive technology.”

Then, in 2000, came the debut of an all-electric, servo-based machine that offered high throughput and flexible changeovers. These systems replaced mechanical drivetrains and conventional programmable logic controllers (PLCs) with a fully integrated automation controller, digital servo drives, intelligent motors and human machine interfaces (HMI).

ELAU’s PacDrive SCL-055 combines motor and drive in the same trapezoidal enclosure, ideally suited for direct integration into rotary tables used in capping and labeling operations.

Built as modular sections that can be integrated, today’s machinery offers decreased life-cycle costs and increased flexibility. The systems have a 50 to 80 percent reduction of parts—which means a shorter lead time (i.e., weeks instead of months) for the OEMs—and they are cleaner and more sanitary than their predecessors. They have a pneumatic system completely connected to the main control system, including diagnostics capabilities. And because they are servo-controlled, they can tightly synchronize multiaxis movements through advanced features like electronic gearing and camming. In short, it corrects the complexities of the intermediate, mid-’90s technology, while still taking full advantage of the innovations. If the first phase of automation was the mechanical typewriter and the second phase was the electronic typewriter, the third phase is the personal computer, and it’s here to stay.

The concept of automating something that used to be done mechanically is still intimidating to some, but those in the industry now comfortable with automation sing its praises and often compare it to Microsoft’s Windows platform. Just as anyone versed in Windows can sit down at any computer and know how to operate it, the same is true for automation. Some industry groups refer to highly automated machines as Gen3 and think you need to be a programmer to use them, according to Bernie Conlon, director of sales and marketing for IWKA PacSystems in Fairfield, N.J. “But it’s like sitting down to a desktop computer.” The machines have touch screens that are called industrial PCs, or IPCs, and some may actually run Windows. “But a lot of people are afraid that Windows is running the machine, and that’s not the case—it’s merely the operator interface. The control system runs the machine. You could take off the IPC, and the machine will continue to do its job.”

 

AUTOMATION NATION

Before every end user jumps aboard the automation bandwagon, it’s critical to know what level of automation is required. For instance, the family-owned honey manufacturer may not find the latest automation as sweet of a deal as it is for the Fortune 100 global supplier of chocolate bars.

P&G’s Aleksa says that out of the company’s 140 manufacturing plants around the world, most of its plants in North America and Europe are highly automated, “because that’s where you need high volume and high capacity,” he says. “For products where there’s strong demand, those will likely be automated. The option for lower tech automation would be strongly considered on new initiatives or developing markets. Some of the key factors in the decision process between lower versus higher automation include affordability, risk tolerance, machine performance requirements to meet product specifications—low-tech machines may not meet product specifications at the desired range of production speeds—and supportability.”

If ignoring technology on the packaging line is foolish, then it’s just as irresponsible to upgrade to costly automated machines that aren’t necessary. “I’m the world’s greatest geek, but I have to admit that sometimes the best automated system is no automation,” says Andrew McDonald, global information and control manager for Unilever Global. “If you have a simple product in a market that is developing, with low labor costs, and you can use manual operations, then why automate?”

Generally the need to automate comes with the demand for increased flexibility, but the term “flexibility” means different things to different companies. Usually it refers to the ability to efficiently handle a wide range of packages or improved packaging-line productivity. It can mean being able to adjust for changes in bottle height and width with the push of a button, or moving from “bite size” to “super size” settings with a changeover of less than five minutes. Flexibility often refers to accommodating the various products—and their sizes and configurations—that a packager must run on the same lines. Automation allows a company to respond faster to innovation. When a product changes, it’s most likely the packaging that’s altered, not the ingredients. So an automated machine can move quickly to make a new shampoo—with a jazzier label, a new, easy-to-grab shape or a travel-sized bottle—which speeds up the overall time required to put the bottle on the shelf at Costco or Walgreen’s.

IWKA PacSystems' carton opening system for its SC 4 cartoner.

In PMMI’s U.S. Packaging Machinery Purchasing Plans Study from April 2004, findings showed that customers recognize the value of current high-tech machinery as a vehicle for improving productivity. According to the findings, 32.5 percent said the decision to order packaging machinery this year was based on the need to improve productivity and/or efficiency. Fifteen percent said adding machinery to automate or reduce labor costs influenced their decision. Moreover, 10.6 percent responded that reducing maintenance was a primary factor.

Those industries with significant volume or flexibility needs are the biggest candidates for automation, says Dan Throne, food and packaging industry manager in the Electric Drives and Controls division, for Bosch Rexroth, based in Hoffman Estates, Ill. “The pharmaceutical industry, for example, is being pushed heavily toward automation,” he says. “And confectionery users have continued to have so much volume and need for flexibility, they’ve been automating for the past decade.” Throne says most companies—upon evaluation—will find that an investment in automation makes sense. “What are the things an end user wants? Speed, throughput, flexibility, reduction of maintenance and a more sanitary design,” Throne says. “So if a machine is accurate, faster, more flexible, more sanitary, completely programmable at the touch of a button and requires less maintenance—automation is the answer, because automation is all those things.”

Automation also requires a significantly larger investment of capital, but Jim Ramsey, director of manufacturing systems optimization for Hershey Foods’ operation engineering department in Hershey, Pa., says you can’t compare costs of a mechanical machine and a highly automated one. “That would be like comparing a horse carriage to a modern jet,” he says. “The automated machine may replace several unautomated ones, and, as a system, may have a lower cost than buying many manual machines.” And depending on the application, the return on that investment may be less than one year. Typical ROI is anywhere from one to three years; the more expensive the product, the faster the automation will start paying for itself. A small company, however, may never see a ROI because its volume isn’t large enough.

“I'M THE WORLD'S GREATEST GEEK, BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT SOMETIMES THE BEST AUTOMATED SYSTEM IS NOT AUTOMATION." Andrew McDonald, global information and control manager, Unilever Global

“Every incidence will be different in terms of cost justification,” says John Kowal, global marketing manager for ELAU Inc. of Chicago. “But certainly it’s being cost justified every day. If I can double the throughput, that’s a no-brainer. We’ve also seen some existing plants that compared the price of expanding their brick and mortar to buying a new machine. If you can fit three lines where there were two before and save on the cost of a new building, that’s a tremendous savings.”

Although servo systems do add to the up-front cost of a machine (which might last 10 to 15 years), the benefits of higher performance, faster changeover and reduced downtime make the differential cost between old and new systems minimal.

 

WHAT AUTOMATION MEANS FOR YOUR LINE

Once upon a time, if there was a problem with a packaging machine, the operator would push the stop button, call for help and take a break while the problem was being resolved. The maintenance on today’s machines is a whole new ballgame, however. Sure, things still break down, but there are fewer moving parts, so the level of maintenance is significantly less. More often than taking a wrench to the machine, or working with gears, cams and shafts, it’s a matter of backing up a software program. Adjustments and configurations can be done electronically, so it’s just minor routine maintenance that remains unchanged. “Things still wear out on machines,” Throne says, “so you would be clearing out jams or replacing suction cups on grippers, but now you’ve got maintenance-free servo motors, and you’ve removed all the lubrication elements.”

Of course less time spent on maintenance begs the question, How does automation affect labor needs? Although automation does cut down on labor (i.e., one operator may handle multiple automated machines), it is far from a replacement for human labor. In most cases, a dark factory is no more of a reality today than it was a decade ago. “Labor needs are pretty much the same as the previous generation,” says Conlon at IWKA PacSystems, which manufactures packaging machines primarily for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. “You still need human intervention to load the machines,” he says. “With the tube-filling machines, for example, you still need someone to bring the tubes to the machines.”

What automaton does do, however, is change the job descriptions. Workers now have a greater role in the operation and maintenance of a machine. “It’s called autonomous maintenance,” McDonald says. “The operator has a bigger role. We’re asking them to maintain, operate and continually improve complex machinery. So you may save on some operational labor, but your support people need to be smarter than the average bear.”

“TRAINING IS THE BIGGEST ACHILLES HEEL TO THE USE OF AUTOMATION." Dan Throne,food and packaging manager,Bosch Rexroth

Campbell explains that these automated machines are often called “mechatronic” machines, which comes from the words mechanical, electronic and informatics (such as programming, computing and networking). And it’s unrealistic to think that there will be a technician in each area—a mechanic, an electrician and a software tech—servicing each machine. “So you need one person,” says Campbell, “the mechatronics technician.”

One of the current obstacles in maintaining these machines is that as much as the end users like the technology, says John Scholes, engineering manager at Omega Design Corp., in Exton, Pa., they’re not fully prepared for it. “I think they’re falling a bit short in their support staff for this technology,” he says. “I don’t think they’re real comfortable going in and doing troubleshooting yet, so they’re calling the OEMs to assist with the service.” Scholes says the machine operation manuals also need to be unique today, whereas a boilerplate manual used to suffice.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in automating a packaging line is ensuring that everyone involved with its operation is sufficiently trained. And while many suppliers offer free training—e.g, “Servos 101”—many insiders say that this is one area in which automation has yet to mature. “Training time has increased, and many times the training provided by the equipment and technology vendors is not very effective,” says Ramsey. “This is a critical issue for us. We not only want to improve our training, but we need to be able to measure the effectiveness of the training we deliver.”

Throne says having people make the jump from mechanics to an automated system is a challenge. “Training is the biggest Achilles heel to the use of automation,” he says. “The training that’s required is a real hole in our educational system. People can get trained on a packaging line, but not on automation platforms.”

Ed Orick, director of marketing for Douglas Machine Inc., in Alexandria, Minn., says that while the level of technology is increasing, the “education levels and skill levels of machine operators are going down.” He says this is one of the biggest challenges with automated machines. “Servo controls assist in automation, but they can make things more difficult for operators.”

The key in training—reducing the amount, variety and cost of training, and making it consistent among suppliers—is the adoption of open architectures, or open standards. Standardized control interfaces give end users flexibility with their automation systems because they can select components from more than one vendor and they will all connect. Clearly, proprietary architecture that locks you into using specific controls, drives and motors from a specific supplier is unwanted. Thanks to this demand, there are very few single-vendor buses being accepted today, but official standards are still in development.

The OMAC (Open, Modular Architecture Controls) Users Group was founded in 1997 to help companies develop and promote such standards and guidelines for the use of motion control. The OMAC Packaging Workgroup was founded to tackle issues unique to packaging. Standards will be set for the interface between the servo drives and the controllers for those drives, and a software development language. The model for industrywide standards is Microsoft’s “Plug-and-Play.” The acceptance of a “Plug-and-Pack” initiative would give OEMs and end users more flexibility, because they could select controls from any supplier and could count on connectivity.

“The goal is to get standardized about how the automated machines are programmed,” says Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan, chairman of OMAC PackLearn and director of Manufacturing Automation Research and Education at Alexandria Technical College’s Center for Automation and Motion Control in Minnesota. “We want to come up with a standardized curriculum for the manufacturing automation technician.” Ryan says he spends way too much energy teaching students the difference between Rockwell automation and Siemens automation. “It’s like getting bogged down with how to put a Chevy engine in a Ford car.” He says that once standards are set, there is a concern among technology providers: If everything starts to look the same, how will they distinguish themselves? Easy, he says—with customer service.

 

GEN4?

According to industry suppliers, one of the next advances in automation is in the area of preventative and predictive maintenance, which would allow packagers to maximize a machine’s efficiency and productivity. “If you take a machine that’s pretty highly automated and make it predict that something is going to break or when it’s wearing, you’re starting to see where our focus is,” Throne says. “End users want their machines to be smarter like our cars. If you have a BMW, it will tell you when to change your transmission fluid. Cameras tell you when to auto focus. And now, users want machines to tell them when they need maintenance.” For this to work, a company would set baseline production parameters, and then if actual output declines from the performance baseline, a machine operator or technician would know it’s time to inspect the system for problems. Intelligent predictive maintenance allows service and maintenance measures to be taken in advance to prevent potential machinery breakdowns.

“In the future, we’ll be able to monitor things on the machine,” Kowal says. “For example, if you need more torque from the motor, it means something’s wearing out or getting jammed. So there could be software on the machine to flag the operator when this starts happening. I think we’re going to see a lot more of that.” Kowal says telediagnostics—also not too far in the future—is the term used to describe the diagnosis of a problem from an outside location—whether it’s at a corporate office across the country or at a factory halfway around the world.

What else is in store for the future? Possibly a move toward more robotics, which would result in even greater flexibility and an increased impact on human intervention. “The future is that we’ve only just begun to understand the capabilities,” Campbell says. “We’ll see prices continue to decline and capabilities increase.”

And as machines become more automated and less expensive, packaging engineers will continue to make decisions about how they use technology on their packaging lines. Some will stick with mechanical systems and some will have state-of-the-art robotics with dim—if not totally dark—factories. As Campbell says, both can—and will—exist. “There were horses and cars on the road together for a long time,” he says, from his home office in Lancaster County, Pa. “In fact, there still are. We have lanes here for cars and lanes for horses and buggies.”

 

Melainie D.G. Kaplan is a writer based in Washington, D.C.