1

Industry-Driven McKee Foods Project

​

By:

Victor Perez-Rivera
 2

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the employees at McKee Foods for participating in the
University of Arkansas Mechanical Engineering Creative Design Project Program, Brien
Katsuren and Bill Green for assisting the team during the development of this project,
FM Corporation for their assistance in the production of parts, Caitlin Gragg for assisting
the team in part acquisition, and Professors Albers, Tan, and Nutter for teaching and
organizing the Creative Design Project Program.
 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 2

Table of Contents 3

Authorship Page 4

List of Tables 5

List of Figures 5

Abstract 6

Introduction 6

Background/Research 7

Goal and Objectives 8

Design Process 9

Discussion 19

Conclusion 21

References 21

Appendices

Appendix A: Health and Safety Considerations 22

Appendix B: Economic Analysis 22

Appendix C: Environmental Considerations 22

Appendix D: Maintenance Considerations 22

Appendix E: Manufacturability and Sustainability 22

Appendix F: Ethical Concerns 23

Appendix G: Social and Political Concerns 23

Appendix H: Engineering Standards 23

Appendix I: CP II Project Presentation Day Posters 23

Appendix J: CP I and CP II Gantt Charts 24

Appendix K: Bill of Materials, Material Properties, Analysis, Drawings 25

Vita 41
 4

 
 5

List of Tables
Table Page
1 SWOT Analysis of Proposed Designs 12

List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Cutting System in First Design 10
2 Clamping System Option for Preliminary Design 10
3 Vacuum Option for Preliminary Design 11
4 Rolling System Option for Preliminary Design 11
5 SolidWorks Assembly of System 13
6 Drawing Listing Major Parts in System 14
7 Vacuum Actuator Working Principle 15
8 Full CAD Assembly of Constructed Prototype 16
9 Slot Plates Used for Tensioning of Belt 16
Top Vacuum Conveyor Assembly Sheet Metal Drawing - With
10 Insert 17, 39
11 Constructed Prototype 18
12 Testing of Vacuum Actuator 18
13 Polypropylene Material Properties 26
14 Analysis of Vacuum Actuator 28
15 Analysis of Vacuum Conveyors 29
16 Vacuum Actuator Dimensions 30
17 Vacuum Actuator Dimensions and Layout 31
18 Bottom Conveyor Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing 32
19 Bottom Conveyor Non-Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing 33
20 Bottom Conveyor Slot-Tensioning Plate Sheet Metal Drawing 34
21 Top Conveyor Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing 35
22 Top Conveyor Non-Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing 36
23 Top Conveyor Slot-Tensioning Plate Sheet Metal Drawing 37
24 Vacuum Insert Sheet Metal Drawing 38
25 Bottom Vacuum Conveyor Assembly Sheet Metal Drawing 40
 6

Abstract

This report outlines the design, building, and testing of a prototype that is to be
used for opening and separating packages of snack cakes at McKee Foods. The
purpose of this prototype was to recover undamaged snack cakes from packaging that
was damaged or improperly sealed. Out of three proposed designs, the one that was
chosen involved separating and opening the packages using a vacuum actuator and
conveyor system. This was chosen because of a preliminary test in which the packages
were able to be popped open using a shop-vac as a proof of concept. The designing of
the prototype that was built was performed in Solidworks to aid in the build process that
was carried out by the team. Initially, there were plans to buy vacuum conveyors and
the actuator off the shelf for the design but the decision was made to build a vacuum
conveyor as a team for the purpose of reducing the overall cost of the prototype, as it
was meant to be a proof of concept and not a final prototype. This dramatically reduced
the target budget from <$10,000 to <$500. In the end, the team ended up spending
~$300 total on parts for the prototype, which was considerably under budget. Results of
testing the prototype that was built were not satisfactory in finding a solution for the
purpose of the prototype for a variety of reasons that are outlined below, but there were
many learnings that can be passed along to the customer in their search for a way to
achieve a solution. Additional conclusions, observations, and lessons learned in the
process as they relate to the design process and working in a team can be found in the
latter sections of this report.

Introduction

The engineering department at McKee foods needs a new way to open and
separate damaged packages of snack cakes in an automated way. This is so that
undamaged snack cakes with faulty packaging can be recycled back into the production
process to be repackaged. The current method of opening these damaged packages
involves employees at the manufacturing facility manually unpacking the snack cakes
by hand. With a new automated process, there are decreased labor costs and a greater
efficiency in the manufacturing process as a whole. The justification for the capital and
labor expense in designing and building such a product comes from the reduction in
labor over time that could occur because of this automated part of the process. This
project is very significant due to the increasing automation in manufacturing, including
the manufacturing that is happening at McKee Foods. As automation in the
manufacturing facility as a whole grows, there will be less personnel manning the
 7

factory floor, and tasks that are not essential to the normal operation of the
manufacturing lines such as this one will need to be automated to reduce the number of
different tasks that one operator would have to perform at a time.

This type of application is a novel idea in the food and beverage industry and
does not have any type of solution (good or bad) to base a design on. As a result,
McKee Foods would like a prototype design that acts as a proof of concept to base a
future design off of, or if successful enough, implement in their manufacturing facility.

Background/ Research

There are not many industries where opening of plastic packaging is required in
the production process, and an off the shelf product does not exist for such an
application. To gain some preliminary insight into the types of damaged products that
the machine will be interacting with, the team and our advisor, Bill Green, took a tour of
the manufacturing facility, led by our sponsor, Brien Katsuren. Along with
understanding the process as a whole, the team got a visual idea of the different types
of damaged products that get taken off of the line and separated for opening. For
example, the most common defective packaging are unsealed packages and packages
that may be sealed but are connected together with 2 or more other packages. These
packages are heat sealed and made out of polypropylene. ​Polypropylene is a
thermoplastic polymer used in a wide variety of applications, including food packaging
[1]. A major useful attribute about thermoplastics is that they can be heated to their
melting point, cooled, and reheated again without significant degradation. Solid products
are packed horizontally on form, fill, seal machines. They are packed at high speed on
roll-wrapping machines with the ends of the film gathered together and heat sealed.

In order to get these packages open we are required to use food safe materials.
This restricted our methods of cutting or opening the package. For example, laser
cutting was an initial idea we had, however, it is not food safe because the laser could
melt the plastic into the food itself causing it to be unsafe to consume. Another example
is blade cutting. Initially we thought this would be a good method, however, it is also
unsafe because the blade could chip and the residue could fall on the food and become
dangerous to consume.

Finally, we found a solution that is food safe. We found a vacuum actuator that
could be applied to bag opening. This is food safe because a suction cup is attached to
the nozzle and the material of the suction cup can be found to be food safe. The only
contact that the food would have is with the suction cup.
 8

Goals and Objectives

The objective of this project is to provide a proof of concept model that can be
used as a reference for future designs and construction the construction of the system
used within the factory. The eventual final product has four functions that would need to
be accomplished for use in a manufacturing setting. They are: infeed, opening,
separating, and outfeed.

Infeed:​ The first part of the process is the infeed, where an employee of the bakery
would take the previously set-aside snack cakes with faulty packaging. The
requirements for this step are as follows:

● Must be ergonomically sound so that the height of the input is such that it is
comfortable to load in snack cakes.
● Must be easily loaded so that loading the machine takes significantly less time
than the current method of manual separation (otherwise the project will not be
justified).
● Must align the snack cakes so that the separation process receives a consistent
input.

Opening:​ The team determined that because of the variety of types of faulty packaging
that occurs, it would be necessary to include a step where packages are initially
opened. The requirements for this step are as follows:

● Must successfully open snack cake packages without damaging the snack cakes
themselves.
● Must use food safe materials.

Separating:​ The next step in the process is for the snack to be separated from the
packaging so that they may be recovered. The requirements for this step are as
follows:

● Must successfully separate snack cakes from packaging without damaging snack
cakes.
● Must use food safe materials.

Outfeed:​ The final step is the outfeed, in which the undamaged snack cakes are
collected separately from the packing film to be put back into the packaging line, while
the plastic film is collected as waste or for recycling.
 9

Additionally, the requirements for the system as a whole and for any equipment in the
manufacturing facility are as follows:

● Every material used must be food safe according to NSF/ANSI 51 standards.

● Blades of any kind should be avoided as a best practice due to the possibility of
chipping.
● Painted surfaces should be avoided.

Because of the limited time and manpower and for the sake of getting a proof of
concept with limited complexity, the team chose to focus on the opening and separating
of the packages, with the infeed and outfeed being a secondary goal should the opening
and separating be successful.

Design Process

Problem statement:
McKee Foods engineers need a way to separate damaged snack cakes from
polypropylene packaging in a way that reduces labor costs and increases
efficiency unlike the current method, which involves employees manually opening
the damaged packages.

Functional Specifications:
a.) Infeed at a height between 2.5 and 4.5 ft.
b.) No tubing or painted surfaces.
c.) FDA food safe materials.
d.) Process speed of 10 pcs/min.
e.) Recover 80% of damaged food products.

Proposed designs:
As part of the design process, the team came up with a variety of options for
which direction the design could go. This ideation process allowed for different types of
solutions to be brought to the table so that with the help of the sponsor and project
advisor, a good direction for the design can be determined.
To accomplish the task of opening the packages, the team proposed the solution
of a rotating blade that would cut the packages as they slid down the chute. A rough
design, made in SolidWorks is shown below in figure 1.
 10

Figure 1. Cutting System in First Design

As a solution for separating the food product from the packages after opening
had occurred, the team proposed the use of robotic arms that would clamp the ends of
the packages and pull the plastic away from the snack cakes, leaving them to be
collected. A visual of the proposed design is shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2. Clamping System Option for Preliminary Design

The next option that was considered for the design was the use of a vacuum
system. This would be similar to the clamping system above with the use of robotics as
the controls, but instead of clamping down on the plastic packaging, the vacuum would
hold the packaging, letting the snack cakes slide out to be collected. The concept for
the tips of the
 11

Figure 3. Vacuum Option for Preliminary Design

The next proposed solution to separating the packaging from the snack cakes
was a very different type of solution. This would involve the opened packages going
through a pair of rollers that would squeeze out any food product to be collected and
recycled while separating out the packaging to be disposed of. A visual of the proposed
idea is shown below in figure 4.

Figure 4. Rolling System Option for Preliminary Design

 12

A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of for each of

the possible design directions was completed and is shown below in table 1. This
analysis provides a quantitative way of measuring the effectiveness of each design as it
relates to meeting the customer requirements. The metrics that were considered
important for the overall success of the design were:

Cost - minimizing the cost would allow for greater justification of the design.
Complexity - simpler solutions are easier to implement and maintain.
Consistency - a consistent design would require less maintenance.
Product damage - by minimizing the damage to the product, it can be repackaged and
sold again.
Food build up - minimizing the build up that occurs allows for greater food safety.

(1-10 with 10 = Best)

Customer Units Relative Clamping Vacuum Rolling

Requirement Weight (1-10) System Grip System

Cost Dollars 7 7 6 9

Complexity # of parts 9 8 5 8

Consistency Food 10 7 8 6
unwrapped
successfully

Damages 1 = large 5 8 9 2
Product damage
10 = minimal/no
damage

Food build 1 = cleared 5 10 10 4

up often
10 = no build up

Total 281 236 217

Table 1. SWOT analysis of proposed designs.
 13

While the clamping system was came out as the A design was proposed for
consideration, the chosen direction for the design was the vacuum idea. This was
because of feedback from the sponsor about the food safety concerns with using a
blade for cutting along with concerns over the feasibility of constructing a prototype
using the clamping system. In this feedback, the sponsor informed the team of vacuum
conveyors and the possibility of those being used in the prototype. Consequently, the
team made a design that included a vacuum actuator for opening the packages and
vacuum conveyors to separate the packages. Solidworks was used to model the system
and can be seen below. It should be noted that this was not the design that was
constructed, but a constructed design could be a proof of concept as justification for
pursuing the construction of the below design.

Figure 5. SolidWorks Assembly of System

 14

Figure 6. Drawing Listing Major Parts in System

Analysis of proposed design:

The necessary vacuum force to open the wrapper of the product was calculated
based on the material properties of polypropylene plastic. This force was used to
assess the power needed in the vacuums chosen for use in the system. These
calculations can be seen in the Appendix, figures 11 and 12.

Design Testing and Results:

After the initial design was accepted a design for the prototype to be generated
was created. It consisted of a vacuum actuator, used for opening the packages, and a
pair of vacuum conveyor belts, which would further separate the opening, allowing the
cakes to be collected and repackaged.
The vacuum actuator used was a Gimatic Vaq 1820, the dimensions and
specifications of which can be seen in the Appendix, figure 16. A diagram of the
 15

working principle of the vacuum actuator is shown below in figure 7. The steps to the
working principle are as follows.

1. No vacuum applied, cylinder retracted by spring force.

2. Applied vacuum creates pressure differential, actuating piston.
3. Suction onto a surface reverses the pressure differential, retracting piston.
4. Object is lifted.
5. Object is released when vacuum is removed.

Figure 7. Vacuum Actuator Working Principle

 16

Figure 8. Full CAD Assembly of Constructed Prototype

The conveyors designed for the prototype were based on the industrial
conveyors used for reference in the initial design file. The bottom conveyor is 28 inches
long, and the top conveyor is 16 inches long. The sidewalls of each conveyor are 16
gauge sheet metal. 1-1/2” PVC pipes were used as rollers for each conveyor;
sandpaper was attached in order to create enough friction to grip the belt material for
rotation. Threaded ¼” rods with jamming nuts were used to maintain a 6 inch distance
between the walls of the conveyor. Slots were cut into the sidewalls for tensioning of
the belts, shown in figure 8. Additional side plates were used to fasten the rollers in
place once the belt was tensioned. A 1-¼” hole was made on a single side of each
conveyor for a vacuum hose to be applied.

Figure 9. Slot Plates Used for Tensioning of Belt

 17

During the process of machining there were complications with creating the
needed cuts in the side walls. The SAE 304 stainless steel supplied by McKee could
not be cut using available tools. Because of this, the team found FM Corporation who
possesses an industrial punch specifically used for sheet metal allowing for the creation
of the sidewalls with the correct dimensions. A change in material to cold-drawn
stainless steel was necessary in order to successfully the holes needed.

The initial design plan included a box that would be placed between the sides of
the conveyors. This box would regulate the area of effect of the vacuum on the
conveyor. During the machining process there were complications due to initial design
flaws that prevented the creation of the box.

Figure 10. Top Vacuum Conveyor Assembly Sheet Metal Drawing - With Insert

A structural frame was made using 2x2 wood beams. The threaded rods were
inserted into holes in the beams to maintain structural alignment and stability of the
machine. 2.5hp vacuums were attached to the conveyors to create the suction to hold
the packages.
 18

Figure 11. Constructed Prototype

Testing:

Figure 12. Testing of Vacuum Actuator

 19

When conducting testing, the team encountered some complications with using
the pneumatic vacuum actuator to open the snack cake packages. The suction cup
could not generate a full seal on the package which rendered the actuator ineffective at
opening the packages. This could best be contributed to the flexibility of both the
suction cup and the package wrapper. In order to continue with testing a shop vac was
used to break the seal on the package so that other aspects of the design could be
tested.

The partially opened packages were run through the conveyor system. The top
conveyor was run at a slightly faster pace than the bottom conveyor with the packages
traveling lengthwise across the belting. In order to generate enough suction to open the
packages, holes along the conveyor belting were covered with tape. The conveyors
were able to double the size of the starting hole, but they were unable to fully open the
package. This is due to lack of distribution of vacuum force across the conveyors.
Using larger vacuums would help in fully opening the packages.

Results:
The use of a shop vac provided a proof of concept for opening the package
through vacuum forces. The conveyor system doubled the size of the hole produced by
the shop vac. Increasing vacuum power and regulating the suction flow in the
conveyors would reduce losses in suction and increase the effective suction force on
the packages as they travel along the conveyors.

Discussion

This project faced many setbacks in the design, building, and testing of the
prototype, but due to hard work from the team and with the much appreciated help from
the sponsor, advisor, and instructor, a prototype was constructed that could be used as
a baseline for future designs. Initially, there was some confusion from the team about
the difference in expectations between the sponsor and the class as a whole, as they
did not seem to quite align fully, but through communication with both parties, a more
clear idea of what the team needed to produce was achieved.

Much of the initial confusion for the design revolved around the complexity and
variety of the functions that were to be performed by the prototype, which can be found
in the “Goals and Objectives” section of this paper. The team initially chose to focus on
the separation function for the design because it was decided that it would be the most
difficult function to achieve, and the other functions could be more easily added on after
a prototype that performs the separation was built. However, upon presenting a
 20

preliminary design review to the instructor and sponsor, it was determined that the
opening function would be a very crucial and difficult function to achieve for the
prototype. Upon meeting with the sponsor, the team was also made aware of the option
of using vacuum conveyors as a way of controlling the position and possibly separating
packages. As a result, the team decided to incorporate those conveyors in the design.
A full summary of the different designs that were created by the team can be found in
the “Design Process” section of this report. At first, commercial vacuum conveyors and
vacuum were found that could be used in a prototype, but a decision was made to try
and construct vacuum conveyors from scratch for the purpose of reducing the cost of
the prototype.

In the construction process, there was some initial confusion about who exactly
would be ordering the parts needed, which somewhat delayed the acquisition and
construction when compared to the original timeline for the project. There was also
some issue with machining the sheet metal in the design for the prototype that led to a
much later construction date than what was planned. In the end, a prototype was
constructed that showed the general idea of the design, but was not as functional as the
team would have hoped. As a result, the team hopes to leave the sponsor with some
recommendations for future work into the project.

As was stated in the results section, the suction cup used did not adequately
make a seal with the packaging, whereas a standard shop-vac hose did. Given this
information, the team recommends the use of a vacuum actuator with a more rigid and
cylindrical attachment rather than a suction cup. Another suggestion for future
improvement relates to the vacuum conveyors. The main difficulty that the team found
with using the vacuum conveyors was that the suction at a given point was not
adequate because of the large area that was free to the vacuum. This could be solved
by an insert that would further localize the vacuum, but there is a need for control over
the location of the applied vacuum. A proposed design for a vacuum insert that was
part of the initial is found in the Appendix, figure 19, but it should be noted that the
machining of the design proved to be too difficult for the team to be able to achieve.
Another problem that was only seen once the prototype was built was with the absence
of a vacuum at the ends of the conveyor, which was a critical section in the initial design
for separating the packaging. One solution to could be to run the conveyors at
differential speeds, allowing the packaging to be separated by the relative motion
between the top and bottom sides. Additionally, an offset top conveyor, given enough
suction, could allow for the packaging to be separated by the weight of the snack cakes
as the package is being held up.

Upon reflection on the design, construction, and testing of the prototype, the
team had many lessons learned that can be applied to future projects and endeavors.
 21

First, many parts of the process could have happened a lot faster and with fewer
hiccups with greater communication from the team to the sponsor, instructor, and
advisor. Often, when there was a fork in the proverbial road or an issue that was
hindering the furthering of the process, the team made assumptions that were
sometimes incorrect rather than consulting with people who would have been helpful.
Another lesson learned was that having a physical prototype early in the process is very
helpful for amending the design and coming toward a working solution, even if the
prototype is not perfect. For much of the construction process, the team got hung up on
creating the prototype as it was designed rather than building an “imperfect” prototype
and building upon that. As a result, the construction process was heavily delayed and a
fully functional prototype was not reached. Relating to the theme of staying on
schedule, the team also learned the importance of working out logistical issues early in
the process so that there aren’t as many surprise lead times that impact adherence to
the planned schedule.

Even with the challenges that were faced, the team appreciates the time, energy,
and money that was spent on the project from the sponsor and advisor. Additionally,
the team is glad to have experienced the learning opportunity and hopes that the
sponsor can use the design idea to come closer to a solution.

Conclusions

● Proof of concept was achieved using a shop-vac to open packaging in a way that
creates a small opening along the top seal.
● With the vacuum actuator purchased, the suction cup did not create an adequate
seal with the polypropylene packaging, resulting in a failure to open the
packaging.
● Vacuum conveyors were able to minimally further open packaging when popped
packages were run through.
● Suggestions for improvement and lessons learned from the process were
obtained, detailed in the “Discussion” section of this report.

References

[1] Plastics Comparison Chart. Alpha Packaging.

http://www.alphap.com/bottle-basics/plastics-comparison-chart.php

[2] SolidWorks 2018, Dassault Systèmes

[3] EMI Corp, GimaticUSA Plastics Catalog - Vacuum Actuator Series VAQ
 22

Appendix A - Health and Safety Considerations

● The design shall not allow any contamination of the snack cakes either through
the prototype parts or because of packaging getting stuck in the snack cakes.
● The design shall not include painted surfaces because of the likelihood of
contamination.
● The design shall not allow excessive buildup of food product to occur with normal
use, threatening food safety.
● The design shall be easy to clean, without unreachable areas.
● The design shall be safe to operate, with any pinch points or moving parts being
covered in a way that an operator is protected from.

Appendix B: Economic Analysis

The economics of the project involve the cost of manufacturing and installing the design
counteracted by the reduction in labor that is caused by the automation of the task. The
sponsor noted that at this present time, this project may not be economically justified,
but that with increasing automation there is a high likelihood of the project being
economically justified in the future.

Appendix C: Environmental Considerations

The only environmental consideration for this project is the effect of cleanliness of the
packaging on its ability to be recycled in a sustainable way.

Appendix D: Maintenance Considerations

The design shall allow simple and accessible maintenance. Consideration should be
put into the way that operation may affect the continuing use of the prototype.

Appendix E: Manufacturability and Sustainability

The vacuum conveyors and vacuum actuator are purchasable from companies that will
ship the product to McKee.
 23

Appendix F: Ethical Concerns

The only ethical concerns for this project involve the increasing automation that is
happening in manufacturing, and the implications of implementing this design in a
manufacturing setting.

Appendix G: Social and Political Concerns

There are no relevant social and political concerns for this project.

Appendix H: Engineering Standards

The engineering standards that are to be considered for this project are as follows:

● McKee Best Practices

● FDA - Inventory of Effective Food Contact Substances
● NSF/ANSI 2: General Food Equipment Standards
● NSF/ANSI 51: Food Equipment Materials

Appendix I: CP II Project Presentation Day Poster

 24

Appendix J: CP I and CP II Gantt Charts

Gantt charts are not designed in such a way that allows them to be present in this
report, but project milestones and dates are highlighted below.
 25

Appendix K: Bill of Materials, Material Properties, Analysis, Drawings

Bill of Materials:
Part Description Quantity Price Source

Belt material Belting for 10ft, 4 in. wide N/A McKee

conveyor

Sheet Metal Used for part of 3 12”x2’ sheets, N/A McKee

body and input 16ga.

Vacuum VAQ1820 1 $99 Gimatic by EMI

Actuator from EMI

Vacuum Cup 5798 Gimatic Flat 1 $2.16 Gimatic by EMI

42mm EPDM

Vacuum for Used to power 2 $37.52 each Home Depot: ​Stanley

Conveyors suction 5 Gal. 4.0 Peak HP
=$75.04 Wet/Dry Vac

80/20 bars base structure 2 - 72 in. $0.24 per inch 80/20 Inc.
30x30mm
= $38.46

80/20 end Connectors for 6 $1.55 each 80/20 Inc.

fastener with M8 bars =$9.30

80/20 end Connectors for 8 $1.30 each 80/20 Inc.

fastener Clip bars to conveyors =$10.40

PVC pipe Roller for 1 ¼ in. nominal, $5.23 Lowes

conveyor 10ft

Bolts Connecting 80/20 15 Bag of 25 for $8.04 Amazon

M8-1.25 x 25mm to belts
Cap screws

Nuts Securing 8. ½” hex insert $0.26 each Lowes

connections lock nut & $0.21 each =$4.18
10, ½” hex nut

Threaded rod For stabilizing 8 - 0.25” x 6” $3.06 each Lowes

conveyor walls $3.99 manual cutting
1 - 0.25” x 72” =$24.48
=$3.99

Shipping - - ≈$50 Various

Tax - - ≈$30 -

Total - - ≈$335.8 -
 26

Polypropylene (PP)

Caption
1. Polypropylene samples showing texture and transparency. © Chris Lefteri 2. Polypropylene
glasses. © Thinkstock
The material
Polypropylene, PP, first produced commercially in 1958, is the younger brother of polyethylene
- a very similar molecule with similar price, processing methods and application. Like PE it is
produced in very large quantities (more than 30 million tons per year in 2000), growing at nearly
10% per year, and like PE its molecule-lengths and side-branches can be tailored by clever
catalysis, giving precise control of impact strength, and of the properties that influence molding
and drawing. In its pure form polypropylene is flammable and degrades in sunlight. Fire
retardants make it slow to burn and stabilizers give it extreme stability, both to UV radiation and
to fresh and salt water and most aqueous solutions.
Composition (summary)
(CH2-CH(CH3))n
General properties
Density 890 - 910 kg/m^3
Price 1.7 - 1.77 USD/kg
Mechanical properties
Young's modulus 0.896 - 1.55 GPa
Yield strength (elastic limit) 20.7 - 37.2 MPa
Tensile strength 27.6 - 41.4 MPa
Elongation 100 - 600 % strain
Hardness - Vickers 6.2 - 11.2 HV
Fatigue strength at 10^7 cycles 11 - 16.6 MPa
Fracture toughness 3 - 4.5 MPa.m^0.5
Thermal properties
Melting point 150 - 175 °C
Maximum service temperature 100 - 115 °C
Thermal conductor or insulator? Good insulator
Thermal conductivity 0.113 - 0.167 W/m.°C
Specific heat capacity 1.87e3 - 1.96e3 J/kg.°C
 27

Thermal expansion coefficient 122 - 180 µstrain/°C

Electrical properties
Electrical conductor or insulator? Good insulator
Optical properties
Transparency Translucent
Eco properties
Embodied energy, primary production * 75.7 - 83.7
MJ/kg
CO2 footprint, primary production * 2.96 - 3.27
kg/kg
Recycle True
Recycle mark

Supporting information
Typical uses
Ropes, automobile air ducting, parcel shelving and air-cleaners, garden furniture, washing
machine tank, wet-cell battery cases, pipes and pipe fittings, beer bottle crates, chair shells,
capacitor dielectrics, cable insulation, kitchen kettles, car bumpers, shatter proof glasses,
crates, suitcases, artificial turf, thermal underwear.

Figure 13. Polypropylene Material Properties

 28

Figure 14. Analysis of Vacuum Actuator

 29

Figure 15. Analysis of Vacuum Conveyors

 30

Figure 16. Vacuum Actuator Dimensions

 31

Figure 17. Vacuum Actuator Dimensions and Layout

 32

Figure 18. Bottom Conveyor Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing

 33

Figure 19. Bottom Conveyor Non-Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing

 34

Figure 20. Bottom Conveyor Slot-Tensioning Plate Sheet Metal Drawing

 35

Figure 21. Top Conveyor Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing

 36

Figure 22. Top Conveyor Non-Vacuum Side Sheet Metal Drawing

 37

Figure 23. Top Conveyor Slot-Tensioning Plate Sheet Metal Drawing

 38

Figure 24. Vacuum Insert Sheet Metal Drawing

 39

Figure 10. Top Vacuum Conveyor Assembly Sheet Metal Drawing - With Insert
 40

Figure 25. Bottom Vacuum Conveyor Assembly Sheet Metal Drawing