A Hand in Automation

Introduction

A recent assessment of advances in robotics published by the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI) attributed increased robotic dexterity to the overall rise in robotics for manufacturers:

While the benefits of manpower reduction and increased operating efficiency are enough to justify the use of robots in the manufacturing line, the real growth in robotics is due to the advances in the design of end-of-arm-tooling (EOAT) or the end effector.

(PMMI. “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment.” PMMI, Reston Virginia: 2014, p. 16.)

This increase is also true for those involved in primary and secondary packaging processes, especially for packagers of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and medical devices. Indeed, innovations in vacuum cups, pneumatic grippers, etc., coupled with advances in mechanical design tools using 3-D simulations of EOAT allow engineers to create ever more flexible and nimble robotic tooling capable of handling multiple tasks. As an authorized robotics system integrator for FANUC America, ESS engineers have designed hundreds of robotic end effectors for a range of applications from assembling drug delivery devices to machine infeeds, robotic carton and case loading, track & trace inspection, and robotic palletizing. Each application requires a different approach to the design of the robot EOAT.

Types of EOAT

Robotic end effector styles can be categorized as vacuum, gripper, platen, or some combination, which can be referred to as hybrid EOAT. Recent developments in “bean bag” soft robotic grippers offer variations on these basic categories. Magnetic EOAT represent yet another category of end effectors beginning to make headlines in automation. The application will dictate which type of EOAT works best.

Vacuum EOAT

ESS deploys vacuum-style EOAT most often. In this design, one or more vacuum cups with vacuum pumps are fitted to a base plate that attaches to the robot. When air is applied, the pumps create a vacuum seal with the cups, allowing the robot to lift whatever is attached to the vacuum cup. This style is best for lifting objects and cases that have a smooth surface. The wide range of vacuum cups available today handles everything from large cases to individual products.

Just a Few of the Wide Range of Vacuum Cup Shapes and Sizes Available to EOAT Designers

Gripper / Pincher EOAT

Gripper-style EOAT represents the next most designed style that ESS sees. Also called pincher EOAT, pneumatically controlled grippers can clamp around an object (or objects) and lift it. Objects with irregular shapes or non-smooth surfaces can be handled more reliably with this type of EOAT. Gripper EOAT is also ideal for applications where the robot must manipulate the product, such as shaking a bottle. In case packing such products as foil pouches, gripper EOAT can be fingered to grab products from a stacker.

Three-sided Grippers Allow Robot to Shake the Bottle without Dropping (left) Pinchers Firmly Grip Vials (right) 

Fingered Gripper EOAT Can Grab Foil Pouches, etc. From a Stacker

Hybrid EOAT

ESS sometimes integrates vacuums with gripper EOAT to create a more stable hybrid end effector for irregularly shaped packages. The vacuum cups affix to the smooth parts of the irregular product while the grippers prevent slippage.

EOAT with Vacuum Cups and Side Grippers Give Added Support When Case-Packing Bottles with Topserts (Portions of the EOAT have been masked to protect proprietary designs.)

Platen EOAT

Platen end effectors also employ vacuum pumps, but rather than using suction cups, the plate of the EOAT is punched with numerous holes. A foam pad is then placed over the plate. When the vacuum pump is applied the entire plate becomes a vacuum, allowing the robot to pick entire layers of product at once.

Platen EOAT Picking a Layer of Bottles from a Tote

Multi-Zone and Multi-Function EOAT

EOAT design has also advanced in terms of how much one end effector can actually do. Multi-function EOAT allows a single robot end effector to perform multiple tasks. For example, ESS’s CEL 5 Case Erector / Loader incorporates an EOAT that uses a vacuum arm to pick and erect RSC cases and move them across a bottom taper. The same EOAT then picks objects that have been automatically collated at the infeed and places them in the same RSC case that it just erected. The same EOAT also bumps the case out of the robotic cell to an integrated top case closer or manual closing station.

 

One EOAT Erects the RSC Case (left) and Loads it (right)

EOAT for Palletizers

Even palletizing end effectors can be designed for more than one product or purpose. ESS designed a pallet cell end effector that allowed the pharmaceutical manufacturer to palletize large bottles into crates, picking three bottles at one time. ESS engineers programmed the same robot and end effector to nudge the bottles into their correct position to allow room for more bottles within the crate. Palletizer EOAT can be “multi-zoned” devices that arrange the vacuum cups in such a way that multiple case sizes can be handled with a single EOAT, reducing the cost for size parts and eliminating lengthy changeover times.

Multi-zone Palletizing EOAT (left) and EOAT with “Nudge Blade” for Crating Bottles (right) (Portions of the EOAT have been masked to protect proprietary designs.)

Advanced Design Tools

Software that allows 3D modeling of a robot end effector as well as simulation design software allows designers to fully visualize a robot end effector and test its functionality in a virtual environment. This allows engineers to fully test the interoperation of vacuum and grippers in hybrid EOAT as well as verify speed and product handling. By designing the EOAT in a virtual environment first, engineers can reduce the R&D time required to specify correct vacuum cup sizes and configurations, as well as vacuum pump PSI, and other details.

Concept Case Erector / Loader EOAT (left) and Final EOAT (right)

Conclusion

Today’s advanced EOAT design tools and components have allowed EOAT designers to create ever more flexible, nimble and functional robot end effectors. This increased functionality has allowed robotic automation to expand into every part of the manufacturing and packaging processes. The 2014 PMMI report concludes that:

For manufacturers, the future will be more robots – working across the entire manufacturing process -performing repetitive tasks and doing the heavy lifting in collaboration with human workers...Robots of the future will move along the manufacturing line tirelessly improving throughput, eliminating waste and reducing overall operational costs.

(PMMI. “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment.” PMMI, Reston Virginia: 2014, pp. 35-36.)

 ESS has years of experience successfully integrated robotic solutions into manufacturing processes as well as primary and secondary packaging processes. Our EOAT designs handle the most delicate products and safely palletize the most robust shipping cases. Contact us to learn more about ESS robotic manufacturing and packaging solutions.

Keeping Track

In PMMI’s recently released “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment,” the authors noted that:

Leading the way for innovative uses of [robotic] vision sensor technology are pharmaceutical manufacturers, who are applying the technology to help with serialization. During the past decade, the pharmaceutical industry has been working to implement item-level serialization and e-Pedigree data transfer for end-to-end tracking and tracing capabilities - starting from when the product comes off the packaging line to when it reaches a merchant.(1)

The study points out that while only about half of all robotics installations currently include vision technology, that number is expected to increase significantly over the next five years. (2) As a packaging machinery manufacturer for the pharmaceutical industry and a FANUC America robotics integrator, ESS has already seen a marked increase in interest for these types of systems. Beyond the ergonomic advantages of reducing repetitive motion for human workers, robots also provide error-proof inspection and aggregation in track & trace serialization applications.

Robotic case packers and robotic pallet cells easily integrate with track & trace systems from OEM suppliers. Faced with impending track & trace compliance mandates, pharmaceutical manufacturers are turning to integrators like ESS to provide vision-enabled track & trace serialization for packaging lines. These packaging systems integrate scanners, cameras, and PC-based software, supplied by the track & trace OEM, to read the unique aggregate code on each unit they manufacture and send that information to a track & trace software package. In a robotic case packing application, a robot facilitates the process by holding an aggregated pack pattern over a vision inspection system to verify the coded units before loading them in the case. Once the aggregation is verified and the units case packed, the track & trace system may also have the capability to print a label that itemizes the contents of a case.

Robotic Case Packer With Integrated Vision Inspection for Track & Trace Serialization

Track & trace robotic pallet cells work in a similar fashion. The case labels printed by the track & trace system may include a unique code for the case as well as information about the case contents. Or alternately, the unique code may be applied on a separate label. In either case, this unique code can also be vision-inspected while the case is conveyed to the robotic pallet cell, or the robot could be programmed to pick the case and hold it up to a vision inspection system prior to palletizing. The track & trace software can also keep track of the pallet’s contents as cases are loaded, and a pallet labeler can be integrated to print and apply the pallet aggregation information.

The recent passage of the federal Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA, H.R. 3204) has given pharmaceutical manufacturers a clear direction forward regarding the implementation of track & trace serialization in their manufacturing and packaging processes. Many pharmaceutical manufacturers, anticipating the need to comply with California’s now superseded e-Pedigree laws, have already begun to specify, purchase, and install robotic, automated track & trace packaging solutions. Experienced packaging machinery OEMs and integrators offer an excellent resource to pharmaceutical manufacturers, providing insight and practical solutions for meeting these emerging drug packaging standards. 

(1)  PMMI. (February 2014) “2014 Trends in Robotics Market Assessment,” page 8.

(2) Ibid.

Robots with A (Re)Purpose

We have all heard the phrase reduce, reuse, recycle. Use less. Use it again. Return it to its original form to reshape it. It’s easy to apply the logic to aluminum cans, but what about packaging machinery? Add a fourth R, repurpose, and the adage also holds true, and with significant cost-savings.

Traditional packaging machinery is designed such that a different automated system may be needed for each step in the process. As an example, a vial packaging line would include one system to pick trays from a magazine and place them into loading position, a second system to load vials in the tray, a third system to pick and place leaflets onto trays, a fourth system to place lids on trays and a fifth system to snap the tray lids closed. When the manufacturer replaces vial packaging with another application, all of those pieces of equipment no longer have a purpose — in essence they become waste, and expensive waste at that. They cannot be re-used. It is impossible to reduce the tooling cost as each system would need to be replaced to handle a different application. And recycling the metal in the equipment might provide some money back, but nowhere near the amount initially spent.

Today, an alternative to traditional packaging machinery exists for manufacturers — robots. A single robot with carefully designed end-of-arm tooling (EOAT) and the correct programming can easily pick and place a tray, pick vials and load them, pick a leaflet from a feeder, place it on top of a tray, pick a tray lid and place it on the tray. A simple device for closing the tray lid may still be necessary, but already the equipment has been reduced from five systems to two. (Admittedly, to do this at any sort of speed, the system would require at least two robots – one to handle the tray placement and loading and one to handle the leaflet and tray lid.) But the real advantage comes to light when the manufacturer changes the product he is packaging.

True story: A customer of ESS called the other day and said, “That robot cell you sold us? Well we’re not doing that application any more. We want to repurpose our robot.” Because the company originally selected a TaskMate™ robotic system, which integrates a FANUC robot with ESS-designed EOAT, they can now use the robotic cell for an entirely different application. The robot, robot base, and controller need no changes. New EOAT and programming for the robot costs very little compared to the cost of a new system. Only a few weeks after placing the order, the system will be up and running the new application. And when that application comes to an end, the customer will be able to repurpose the robot again. With the correct preventative maintenance, many years may pass before the system is at risk of becoming nothing more than expensive waste.

Manufacturers have many choices of how to “go green” when it comes to packaging machinery. A bright yellow FANUC robot in a TaskMate cell is one easy way to do so.



TaskMate Robotic Systems



The Ergonomics of Automation

As an integrator for FANUC Robotics, North America, ESS has given a good deal of discussion to the advantages of increased productivity achievable when manufacturers automate their manual processes. A number of factors contribute to the increased production, including faster speeds, improved material handling, and reduced downtime associated with changeover. The ergonomics of automation are less widely discussed, but reducing workplace injuries also increases productivity and can save manufacturers thousands of dollars in lost productivity and worker’s compensation.

Ergonomic Injuries by the Numbers

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), often referred to as ergonomic injuries, accounted for 28 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses requiring time away from work...[i] MSDs include sprains and strains, inflammation, degeneration, tears, pinched nerves or blood vessels, bone splintering and stress fractures. Repetitive motion injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome fall into this category as well.

A research paper published earlier this year, “An Ergonomic Investigation of the Case Packing Line at Company XYZ”[ii] provides a succinct analysis of the types of injuries and their impact on a manual case packing operation. The paper concludes that the most common injuries were associated with the wrist and the back.[iii] Back injuries are most commonly the result of improper lifting techniques; wrist injuries are caused by cumulative trauma disorders (CDTs), such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. In this particular study, seven OSHA recordable injuries totaled more than $59,000 in workers compensation claims over a four year period.[iv] While the paper did not include data for manual palletizing processes, it is not hard to imagine a similar injury rate for that physically demanding process. Data from the BLS further underscores the lost of productivity due to workplace injuries, for example:

·         3,277,700 total reportable injuries; 965,000 of those injuries resulted in time missed from work

·         379,340 injury reports involved sprains, strains, and tears; 11% of those injuries (43,100) occurred to workers in the manufacturing industry

·         195,150 back injuries were reported; 10% (20,540) occurred to workers in the manufacturing industry [v]

The study of the case packing line concluded that, “The case-packing process should be further investigated in order to implement changes that will reduce the ergonomic risk factors currently present.”[vi]

Automation Solutions

Robotics automation offers a quick and relatively uncomplicated solution to reducing the ergonomic risks of both manual case packing and palletizing processes. Robotic case packers can quickly collate and load cases of product, and often these systems require less floor space than manual case packing stations. While the case packer still requires human intervention to run the machine and re-load the case magazine, the repetitive motions are handled by the robot, which cannot be injured.

Robotic pallet cells also require a human operator, mainly to operate the pallet jack to move pallets into and out of the pallet cell, but the robot handles the case lifting and stacking motions, again reducing the risk of injury to personnel. Even assembly and material handling processes can present an injury risk to employees. Assembly processes very often include repetitive processes that can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome or tendonitis, as can some material handling processes. For example, hand feeding a high speed blister packaging machine can require anywhere from one to six people to repetitively load blisters with product. Robots today have the dexterity needed for many assembly and material handling processes, allowing human personnel to be reassigned to duties that are less likely to cause injury.

Conclusion

Looking at the bottom line only, by reducing the risk of injury to their personnel, manufacturers can realize decreased downtime due to employee absence as well as decreased worker’s compensation costs. This may lead to increased profitability, which may, among other things, allow manufacturers to avoid relocating their factories to countries with lower wages in order to reduce overhead costs. Factor in the human equation and calculate the number of injuries not suffered by employees, and manufacturers can clearly see the ergonomic advantages of automating manual processes.

[i] Bureau of Labor Statistics (11/9/2010) “Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Requiring Days Away From Work, 2009.” Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov 10/14/2011.

[ii] Schmidt, J. (2011) An Ergonomic Investigation of the Case Packing Line at Company XYZ. Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2011/2011.schmidtjos.pdf 10/14/2011.

[iii] Ibid, p. 34.

[iv] Ibid, p. 49.

[v] Bureau of Labor Statistics “Latest Numbers.” Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/IIF/ 10/14/2011.

[vi] Schmidt, p. 38.

---

The Eyes Have It: Machine Vision and the Art of Pick & Place

A recent article written by FANUC Robotics about delta-style robots points out, “In an ideal world, parts line up and fit perfectly; however, in the real world work pieces often require a wiggle or visual adjustment.”[i] In pick-and-place applications, this is especially challenging. Hard automation requires relatively precise positioning in order for the system correctly pick and place objects. An offset of even a few millimeters can potentially cause a missed pick or a botched place. In high speed packaging machinery, this will cause a system stop. One solution to avoid this down time requires a pair of eyes and deft handling to quickly and correctly pick and place. Enter the vision-capable delta style robot. The combination a FANUC M-1iA delta-style vision-enabled 6-axis robot with a flexible conveyor system creates a highly reliable and fast pick-and-place system that requires very little floor space.

In picking applications, machine vision systems continuously take a snap shot of the product moving on the conveyor, which is often backlit to increase the machine vision’s accuracy. As the article explains, “When a product is identified by the camera, its location is combined with the current position of the conveyor belt. As the product enters a robot work area the robot is able to accurately move to the product and either pick it or work on it while matching the current conveyor speed.”[ii] This allows even oddly shaped objects to be accurately picked and precisely placed at high speeds. Space-hogging expensive bowl feeders can often be replaced with this type of system. ESS has successfully tested these robotic flexible feeding systems for picking and placing droppers, caps, plugs, wands, filter elements, cosmetic pans, ball bearings and more.

Assembly applications are also taking advantage of vision-enabled robotic systems. A six-axis M-1iA robot offers increased flexibility, allowing parts to be fed from the sides of the work zone, increasing the usable work space.[iii] The use of machine vision and flexible conveyors to handle the assembly components further reduces the floor space required for the system, allowing a wide variety of manual assembly processes to be automated. Manufacturers in a range of industries are beginning to embrace machine vision; in fact, ESS has conceptualized and/or manufactured assembly systems for medical devices, diagnostic test kits, filter assembly, cosmetic compact assembly, cap and wand sub-assemblies, and requests for proposals for these types of systems are on the rise. It’s easy to see how machines with vision offer a clear solution in pick-and-place processes.

---

[i] Bruce, David. “How to Automate More Assembly Applications—The Delta Robot Advantage.” Assembly Magazine 18 May 2011. 18 August 2011. <http://www.assemblymag.com/Articles/Howto/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000001050346>

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] FANUC Robotics America, Inc. M-1iA Genkotsu (fist) Robot. Rochester Hills, MI: FANUC Robotics America, Inc., 07/2009. Print.

Size Matters

A recent article in PMT Magazine pointed out the innovations in compact packaging machinery that allow packagers to maximize productivity without maxing out their available floor space. Size matters in packaging facilities, and bigger isn’t better when it comes to machine footprints. As the PMT article states, “Most packaging professionals can’t recall a time when getting the most functionality out of a piece of real estate wasn’t a concern.”[i] This concern also applies when upgrading a manual packaging process to a semi-automatic or fully automatic process. A manual work station can require more room than people realize, and in many cases, the automated solution actually uses less space. For example a manually loaded cartoner infeed requires space for the product infeed conveyors as well as the area where one or two workers (or more, depending on cartoning speed) stand to load the product from the infeed conveyor to the cartoner bucket infeed. Assuming the product infeed requires 10-18 inches width for conveying product to the loading station and the workers are an average shoulder width of 16-22 inches, the cartoner infeed would need to be extended, at a minimum, almost three feet per worker (and possibly more). In contrast, robotic cartoner loading systems can perform the same task in only 3’ x 3’ of space. And if small size wasn’t enough, a robotic system can handle filling the cartoner infeed 24/7/365 without risking repetitive motion injuries.

Technology advances also allow machine sizes to dwindle. Walt Langosch, Director of Sales and Marketing for ESS Technologies explained to PMT Magazine, “When you had mechanically driven systems with motors and cams, [the machine] needed large heavy frames...Newer servo- and pneumatically driven machines, on the other hand, require smaller support structures.”[ii] Langosch goes on to point out that smaller machines mean less heat to be ventilated, and in some cases, less electricity is needed to run the machine. But going too small can present real drawbacks for the packaging process. It is important to partner with an OEM who has experience in specifying the right size of machine.

Today’s machine building technology makes possible solutions that were unthinkable five or ten years ago. Automated packaging systems such as monoblock fillers/cappers, horizontal cartoners, robotic case packers, and robotic mini pallet cells offer solutions to automate manual packaging processes without maxing out the available factory floor space. Retrofitting manual systems to use robotic or other types of automation offers another solution. Compact robotic systems are ideal not just for cartoner infeed loading, but pick-and-place kit packing, product sorting, puck loading or unloading, blister or thermoformer loading, and more, all in a very small footprint that integrates easily with existing equipment. As Langosch observed, “If packaging system owners thought they couldn’t automate their manual lines because of space issues, they should take a fresh look at it.”[iii] Today, there are more ways than ever to increase productivity while keeping the equipment small.

---

[i] Parsons, Jim. “The Race for Inner Space.” PMT Magazine. May/June 2011. pp. 48-54.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

End of Line Packaging Trends

It seems these days, no matter what part of the packaging process one is talking about, automation is the word. This is also true for end-of-line (EOL) packaging. Increasingly, manufacturers and contract packagers look for flexibility in the equipment they specify for their packaging lines. The impetus for this is two-fold. First, manufactures are looking to do more with less — more productivity and more uptime, with fewer personnel, less floor space and less capital equipment. Robotic case packers and palletizers offer a higher rate of speed than most traditional EOL systems, and fewer personnel are required to operate the equipment. A carefully designed robotic system will also greatly reduce the amount of floor space required for the system, especially in multi-SKU lines where conveyors require a substantial portion of the needed floor space.

Second, retailers who are in the process of streamlining their own operations have started to require manufactures to deliver mixed pallets — pallet loads that consist of multiple products in various case sizes. Robotic case packers and palletizers handle changes in package size and weight more efficiently, and robotic EOAT can be designed to handle multiple product types. Even EOAT dedicated to a single product can increase flexibility as changeovers require no tools and can be accomplished in under two minutes. Automatic EOAT changeover systems, such as the one available from ESS Technologies, make fast changeover even easier, and completely hands-free. Responding to pre-programmed instructions, the robot detaches one EOAT to a special docking station that holds all the EOAT for the system. Once docked, the robot automatically releases the current EOAT and positions itself over the desired EOAT. The robot then connects itself to the selected EOAT and returns to the ready position. Today’s robotic controllers allow multiple “recipes” to be stored, making the switch from one product to another a simple “one-button” process.


Robotic case packers and palletizers offer a more flexible and reliable solution for packaging products from single or multiple packaging lines. The low maintenance costs and ease of operation give robotic systems a very fast return on investment (ROI), and their flexibility and high reliability make them useful for many years as they tackle the packaging challenges that non-robotic systems cannot address.