Lisa Gardner - Newell Rubbermaid 2018

1. 1
Automating the Seal Leak Testing
Food Storage Containers:
Lisa Gardner
7/30/2018
Design Engineering Intern
Manager – Chris May
Graduating May 2019

2. Introduction
• Project Deliverables
• Overview of Existing Leak Test
Deep Dive
• Developing the Testing Apparatus
• Correlation to Existing Leak Test
• Updated Test Procedure
Future Steps
• Apparatus Recommendations
• Testing Procedure Recommendations
Overall Newell
Experience
• Lessons Learned
• Resources Used Throughout Project
2
Presentation Agenda

3. 3
The Project
Automate our leak testing procedure
Improve current procedure
Create test fixture
Price final apparatus
Design the fixture in Creo

4. Company Impact
Why Is it Important? Allows us to free up technician’s time,
so we can do more robust testing.
Makes our tests more standardized and our
results more reproducible.
10,000-15,000leak tests per year
251work days in a year (excluding National holidays)
90 seconds per test (including set-up)
60 tests per workday, 375 hours annually, and $13,125* spent annually
*Based on the average hourly wage of a contracted technician (approximately $35)
4
Removed to not reveal company information

5. 5
Overview of
Existing Leak Test

6. 6
Existing Procedure
50% filled
with water
Rotated on all
4 sides
PASS: ≤ 5 drips per side or < 20 drips total
Removed to not reveal company information

7. 7
Products in Scope
FreshWorks Premier Brilliance*
EFL TakeAlongsLock-Its
*Because of its leak-proof claim, Brilliance undergoes the Walmart leak test of 4 90 degree rotations for 30 minutes on each side
7

8. 8
Developing the
Testing Apparatus

9. 9
Final Apparatus: Exploded View
Steel Plate
Steel Plate Holder
Mounting Disk
IR Drip Sensor Holder
Water Droplet Funnel
IR Rotation Sensor
Gears
Screen & Start Button
Estimated Cost: $180.87 9

10. 10
Container Attachment Method
Max Breakaway
Force: 95 lbf
Estimated Shear
Force: 10 lbf
Max Breakaway
Force: 150 lbf
Estimated Shear
Force: 16 lbf
Chosen Method: Magnets
Max Force of
Container Weight: 12 lbf
Moment
Force Due
to Gravity

11. STEP 1
11
Container Attachment Method
Fill container
50% with water
Position magnet in the center of
the container and turn it on
Attach the lid
Mount the container
on the apparatus
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

12. Steel Plate
12
Container Attachment Method Adaptation
Steel Plate
d = distance between magnet and steel plate

13. 13
Rotating the Container & Collecting Drips
Hardware Software 13

14. 14
Creating the Apparatus: Hardware
DC Motor IR Sensors Push ButtonH Bridge
Gears Power Source 8020 Aluminum
Microcontroller
Steel Plate
& Magnet
Wires, Resistors,
& Flyback Diode
Water Collection
Funnel
OLED Screen

15. 15
Software

16. 16
Stopping Rotation at 90 Degrees
IR Sensor

17. 17
Code
90 degree rotations with 10 second pause
Printing the drips
30 seconds of continuous rotation
Displaying final results and resetting the test

18. 18
Drop Collection
1 drop detected
IR Sensor

19. 19
Drop Collection Code Adaptation
Rotate to 90 degree position
Stop
Check for drops
Delay 10 seconds
Total drops detected: 0
If there is a drop, update the
total number of drops
Typical Code Execution
= 1 drip passed in front
of the IR sensor
This code checks for
drops one time.

20. 20
Drop Collection Code Adaptation
Final Code Execution
Rotate to 90 degree position
Stop
Delay 10 seconds
If a is detected, the
code executes the
update line and then
returns to the main code
Check for drops
If there is a drop, update
the total number of drops
Total drops detected: 5= 1 drip passed in front
of the IR sensor
This code checks for
drops continuously.

21. 21
Completed Test Apparatus
21

22. 22
Correlation to
Existing Leak Test

23. 23
Does the Magnet Change the Seal?
Sizes: 0.5 cups, 1.3 cups, & 3.2 cups Size: 5 cups
Trial Total Drops by Hand Total Drops by Apparatus
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
Trial Total Drops by Hand Total Drops by Apparatus
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
23

24. 24
Leaking Container Comparison
4
0
Stream
0 0 0
4
1
0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
DROPS
TRIALS
NUMBER OF DROPS BY HAND AND
BY APPARATUS ON ONE SIDE
Drops by Hand Drops by Apparatus
This Sistema TakeAlongs pre-production container leaked inconsistently from
trial to trial even when the method of drop collection was held constant.
24

25. 25
Updated Test Procedure

26. 26
Adapted to New Apparatus
Standardize closing the lid of
the container to reduce
variation in results by burping
the lid and by lining up
Rubbermaid logos.
26

27. 27
Recommendations

28. 28
Benchmarking the Two Tests
Test Method
Maintains
integrity of
container for
use in future
testing
Consumer
Relevant
Standardized
Drop Collection
Requires
minimal work
of technician
Does not affect
seal by creating
false forces
Testing by Hand
Testing Using
Apparatus
Resting containers on a surface with the lid hanging off creates
another force that could change the integrity of the seal.
The testing apparatus saves time, standardizes drop collection, and
maintains the integrity of the seal and the container.
28

29. Company Impact
10,000-15,000leak tests per year
92 seconds per hand-held test*
46 seconds for test apparatus set-up
50% reduction in time where the technician is needed
$6,562.50 saved annually just on time spent testing
+ increased technician productivity
+ standardization could reduce number of production cycles
+ higher quality products
*includes putting on the lid
29
Removed to not reveal company information

30. 30
Future Steps: Testing Apparatus
• Conduct a usability study with
technicians
• Waterproof and encapsulate device to
increase safety
• Estimate lifespan of the device
• Add code that allows for data export
directly to Excel
• Add code that gives more information
to product engineers
30

31. 31
Future Steps: Overall Leak Testing
• Automate lid attachment to increase
test result reproducibility
• Pursue a better, more rigorous testing
plan where samples are tested
multiple times
• Minimize human error wherever
possible, so that we can have higher
confidence in our results
31

32. 34
Thank You
Thank you

33. 35
Questions?

34. Appendix
36

35. 37
Costing

36. 38
CAD Model
Steel Plate
Steel Plate Holder
Mounting Disk
IR Drip Sensor Holder
Water Droplet FunnelIR Rotation Sensor
Gears
Screen & Start Button

37. 40
Alternative Ways to Test Leak Proof Containers
Tim Wong and Josh Rivera have worked previously on other ways
to leak test, but these have involved permanently modifying the
container and were difficult to correlate to our existing tests.
40

38. 41
Understanding the motor’s ability to hold containers
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3
STEP 4
41

39. 42
Magnet Usability
Magnetic Field
with Magnet “ON”
Magnetic Field
with Magnet “OFF”
The ability to turn the magnetic field on and off means that
technicians will not have to pry the containers off of the apparatus

40. 43
Determining a Pass/Fail In the Code
There are two ways a
container can fail. If
neither of those failure
criteria is met, then the
container passes.
Failure #1: There are more than 20
drops total
Failure #2: There are more than 5
drops on any of all four sides

41. 44
Schematic Diagram
OLED Screen
Microcontroller
Motor Driver (H Bridge)
Motor
IR
Sensor
IR
Sensor
44