System Design for A4 Paper Packaging: An Analysis of Shrink Film

Packaging
Supphachai Nathaphan1*and Sarayut Nathaphan2
1

Department of Industrial Engineering

Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University
25/25 Phutthamonthon Sai 4 Rd.
Salaya, Nakhonpathom, 73170, THAILAND
Corresponding authors e-mail: egsnh@mahidol.ac.th
2

Department of Business Administration (Finance)

Mahidol University International College, Mahidol University
25/25 Phutthamonthon Sai 4 Rd.
Salaya, Nakhonpathom, 73170, THAILAND

Abstract: The last packaging process of A4 paper processors are to gather 5 reams of A4 paper and repackage them
with shrink film, Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE), via automatic cutting and wrapping machine. Problem in
this study is defectives of shrink film packaging incurred during the last process of packaging in a shrink tunnel.
Defectives are cracks and holes on the shrink film packaging along both sides adjacent to the sides facing heaters of the
shrink tunnel resulting in high rejection rate of finished products. Hypothesis has been set to answer what causes
defectives on shrink film packaging stated that defectives may be caused by different shrinkage rates in horizontal and
vertical planes. Specific sieve is used in exploring pattern of film shrinkage. Contribution of this study is to propose an
experimental design that equates shrinkage rate of horizontal and vertical planes. Two factors causing such defectives
are temperature and speed in the shrink tunnel given constant temperature in the shrink tunnel and thickness of the
shrink film is 40 6 microns. Factorial design is conducted in this study in order to determine the appropriate
shrinkage level. Therefore, shrink ratio is set to be closed to one in order to have equal tensile strength in both planes.
The result indicates the appropriate temperature and speed in the shrink tunnel should be set at 130 Celsius and 16.5 Hz,
respectively. By setting temperature and speed as indicated, shrink ratio is 1.07 and average thickness of shrink film is
43.75 microns comparing with the average thickness of shrink film prior entering the shrink tunnel of 40.4 2.12
microns. Empirical results from applying appropriate temperature and speed indicate that defectives from shrink film
packaging reduces to 0.3% per month comparing with 7.4% per month prior to applying appropriate level of
temperature and speed.
Keywords: Shrink Film, Shrinkage Ratio and Analysis of Variance

1. INTRODUCTION
Five major types of papers divided by qualifications are Kraft paper, printing and writing paper, paper board and
packaging paper, household and sanitary paper, and newsprint. Kraft paper has high flexibility and high level of tear
strength. An example of products from Kraft paper is core of paper roll. Printing and writing paper are used for various
purposes such as making copies or general office usage. Paper board and packaging paper are used for packaging
purposes such as paper box for retail business. Household and sanitary paper is mainly used by household such as
sanitary napkins. Newsprint is commonly used as main material in producing magazine, journals, books, etc.
(Phisitbuntul, 1982). Printing and writing paper is the focused product for this study. The emphasis is on the final
packaging process before delivering to wholesalers or retailers of A4 paper processors. Two types of final packaging
are used in gathering and combining 5 reams of A4 papers. One is paper box and the other is plastic-wrap. Cost of
paper box in combining 5 reams of A4 paper is higher than plastic-wrap by 5 Baht per package. As the major end users
of the selected A4 paper processor are copy centers and retailers, thus 91 percent of total productions are plastic-wrap
packaging.
The final packaging process of A4 paper processor is to gather 5 reams of A4 papers and repackage them with
shrink film via automatic cutting and shrink packaging machine, Sleeve type. Problem in this study is the defective of
plastic-wrap or shrink film packaging incurred during the last process of packaging in a shrink tunnel. Defectives are
cracks and holes on the plastic-wrap packaging (see Figure 1.) resulting in high rejection rate of finished products. That
is 7.4 percent of finished products are rejected by the end users.

Figure 1. Defectives on the plastic-wrap packaging

Three factors causing such defectives are temperature in the shrink tunnel, speed of conveyor, and thickness of the
shrink film (Paklamjeak, 1990). The study indicated that, given thickness of the shrink film, two major factors causing
defectives are high temperature and slow speed of the conveyor in the shrink tunnel. Reason of controlling the range of
thickness of the shrink film to be 40 6 microns is that, at the indicated thickness, it can bear 12.25 kilograms of 5
reams of A4 paper as it has tensile strength at 30 MPa. The objective of this study is to suggest the appropriate
conditions for the final packaging process that has no crack or holes on the shrink film final packaging.

2. COMBINING PROCESS OF SHRINK PACKAGING MACHINE

Commodity plastic is used in the final packaging process, i.e., Polyethylene (PE), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE),
Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE), Polypropylene (PP), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Polyvinylidene Chloride
(PVDC) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Shrink film used in this study is Linear Low Density Polyethylene
(LLDPE), when heated LLDPE will change from soft shrink film to be harder plastic. LLDPE is a common material
used due to LLDPE has linear molecular structure, which has high level of tensile strength, and lower price per
kilogram compared with other commodity plastic ( Torres, 2006).
As shown in Figure 2., five reams of A4 paper are wrapped with shrink film and are processed through shrink
wrapping machine via conveyer. Shrink film will be heated in the shrink tunnel and transformed to be wrapping plastic
came out from the shrink tunnel (Davis, 1978). Two major factors help transforming LLDPE into wrapping plastic are
temperature and speed (or time) of the conveyor in the shrink tunnel. There are two main types of shrink film, one
plane tensile shrink film and two planes tensile shrink film (Japanese Standards Association, 1995 and Thai Industrial
Standards, 1995).

Shrink Tunnel

Figure2. Shrink Wrapping Machine

Thickness of the shrink film after passing the shrink tunnel is measured and used as a criterion in determining the
appropriate conditions of the final packaging process. To reduce or eliminate cracks and holes along the sides of the
shrink film packaging, thickness of the shrink film when heated should be dispersed evenly. In the other words, given

evenly dispersed thickness shrink film, if shrink film is heated, shrink rate from two planes, horizontally and vertically,
will be approximately equaled. Therefore, defective will be minimized.

3. TESTING PROCEDURES
Problem of the last packaging process is defectives which are cracks and holes on the plastic-wrap or shrink film
packaging. The hypotheses of testing procedures are set as follows:
Ho: Shrink ratio is unity
Ha: Otherwise
Total weight of 5 reams of A4 paper that the shrink film packaging has to bear is at least 10.75 and 12.25
kilograms for 70 and 80 grams A4 paper, respectively. If shrink rates of horizontal and vertical planes are not
approximately the same, due to different thickness of the shrink film, tension on the shrink film will be different
causing cracks or holes on the plastic-wrap or shrink film packaging.

3.1 Shrinkage Testing

Control factor for tensile testing is the thickness of the shrink film. As shown in Figure 3., thickness of the shrink film
should be 40 6 microns prior entering the shrink tunnel. Fifty random samples, 1 5 square inches of each sample,
are drawn and measured by micrometer caliper for six times for each sample. The average thickness of each sample is
calculated until 50 samples are reached. The average thickness is 40.4 microns with standard deviation of 2.12 microns
implying that the qualifications of shrink film after controlling for thickness are not different.

Figure 3. Thickness Testing of Shrink Film

S0
where S0 represents the
S
larger percentage of shrinkage either from horizontal or vertical plane and S represents smaller percentage of shrinkage
either from horizontal or vertical plane. Criterion of the test is that shrinkage ratio should approach unity indicating that
tensile from two planes are approximately the same. To calculate shrinkage ratio, shrink film of the size 10 10 square
centimeters are placed in the specific sieve and pass the specimen through the shrink tunnel, as shown in Figure 4.

Measurement of the test (Japanese Standards Association, 1995) is shrinkage ratio

(a) Before Entering Shrink Tunnel

(b) After Passing Shrink Tunnel

Figure 4. Shrinkage Testing

3.2 Factorial Design for Shrinkage Testing

Shrinkage in the machine direction is generally higher in the transverse direction (Higashioji, 2002). Moreover, at
higher temperature, shrinkage is higher (Mody, 2001). One possible explanation why at higher temperature induces to
more shrinkage is low crystallinity of the shrink film (Maruhashi, 1996). It can be concluded that temperature is one of
the major factors causing different shrinkage rate in horizontal and vertical planes resulting in deviation from unity of
shrinkage ratio.
Since the primary packaging delivers two quantities at two different speed. Paper cutting machine in the primary
packaging process is set at 14.5 Hz and 16.5 Hz in order to deliver 30 reams and 37 reams of A4 paper per minutes,
respectively. Having set two different speeds is to increase production rate if demand has arisen. Thus, speed of the
conveyor of the shrink tunnel has to be set accordingly.
Prior to the proposed factorial design, temperature in the shrink tunnel is set at 150 degrees in Celsius measure and
at speed of 16.5 Hz. At the current packaging procedures, defectives on the shrink film packaging are 7.4 percent per
month or 6,430 defective packages out of total of 86,887 packages. Shrinkage ratio prior adjustment is at 1.90. Trial
and error has been conducted by setting temperature at 120 degrees in Celsius measure and at the speed of 16.5 Hz,
there is no shrinkage in the shrink film. Therefore, it is appropriate to test at the speed and temperature a shown in
Table 1. Table 1 reports shrinkage ratio results from the factorial design of 22 and the number in parentheses are the
order of experiment.

Table 1. Results of Shrinkage Ratio from 4 conditions

Speed of Conveyor (Hz)

130

Temperature of
Shrink Tunnel
(C)

140
y . j.

14.5

16.5

1.15 (11) 1.12 (12) 1.08 (1) 1.10 (9)

1.11 (5) 1.16 (14) 1.07 (4) 1.04 (7)

y i..

1.10

1.27 (16) 1.32 (8) 1.24 (13) 1.20 (10)

1.26
1.28 (2) 1.33 (15) 1.26 (3) 1.21 (6)
1.22
1.15
y ... = 1.18

Results from Table 1 indicate that the appropriate temperature and speed of the conveyor should be at 130 degrees
Celsius and 16.5 Hz. At the appropriate temperature and speed, shrinkage ratio is approaching to unity. This implies
that tensile from horizontal and vertical planes are approximately equaled. However, the unanswered question is that
when temperature has changed from 130 to 140 degrees Celsius and speed has changed from 14.5 to 16.5 Hz, would
such changes have any impact on the shrinkage ratio or not.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

Table 2 reports from analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on statistical model as shown in equation (1).
yijk = + i + j + ( )ij + ijk

Where:

y ijk = the k th Shrinkage Ratio under factor i and j

i and j
ijk

= average shrinkage ratio of all factors

= impact factor of shrinkage ratio arises from temperature i and speed j
= residual or random error

(1)

Table 2. Analysis of Variance Results

Source of Variation
Speed of Conveyor (Hz)
Temperature (Celsius)
Speed*Temperature
Error
Total
R2

Sum of Squares
0.018225
0.102400
0.000100
0.008450
0.129175

Degree of Freedom
1
1
1
12
15

Mean Square
0.018225
0.102400
0.000100
0.000704

F0

P Value

25.88
145.42
0.14

0.000
0.000
0.713

2
= 0.934 Radj
= 0.924

Results from Table 2 indicate that temperature and speed of the conveyor do affect shrinkage ratio. At 5 percent
significant level, temperature and speed of the conveyor can explain the variation in shrinkage ratio by 92.4 percent.
Figure 5 shows that as temperature increases, shrinkage ratio will increase. On the other hand, if the speed of conveyor
increases, shrinkage ratio will decline. There is no interaction relationship between temperature in the shrink tunnel and
the speed of the conveyor at 5 percent significant level as shown in Figure 6.

Main Effects Plot (data means) for Shrink Ratio

Temperature (Celsius)

Speed of Conveyor (Hz)

1.28
1.26

Mean of Shrink Ratio

1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.10
130

140

14.5

16.5

Figure 5. Effect of Temperature and Speed on Shrink Rate

Interaction Plot (data means) for Shrink Ratio

T emperature
(Celsius)
130
140

1.30

Mean

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

14.5

16.5
Speed of Conveyor (Hz)

Figure 6. Interaction Plots between Temperature and Speed

The implication from the results above is that by adjusting temperature and speed of the conveyors to be at 130
degrees Celsius and 16.5 Hz, respectively, thickness of the shrink film would be equally dispersed. This would lead to

a lower rate of defectives on the shrink film packaging. To ensure that the appropriate temperature and speed of
conveyor lead to a lower rate of defectives, we specify 6 positions for measuring thickness of the shrink film after
passing the shrink tunnel as shown in Figure 7. Results of average thickness of the shrink film are reported in Table 3.

Figure 7. Thickness Measure Position

Table 3. Average Thickness of Shrink Film (Micron)

Speed of Conveyor (Hz)

14.5
44.17

130

Temperature of
Shrink Tunnel
(C)

140

45.17

44.67

45.83

47.67

48.67

49.00

47.67

16.5
44.33

44.79

48.10

43.83

43.83

43.67

45.83

44.50

43.50

44.00

48.00

48.83

45.17

45.50

47.83

47.50

46.83

47.33

46.47

y . j.

43.75

46.25

45.00

y i..

42.83

43.67

44.67

43.83

46.00

47.33

46.33

45.50

44.27
47.20
y ... = 45.73

Results from Table 3 indicate that thickness of shrink film and the temperature are moving in the same direction
whereas thickness of shrink film and speed of conveyor are moving in the opposite direction. Thickness of shrink film
at 130 degrees Celsius and at speed of 16.5 Hz is 43.75 microns. Figure 8 depicts histograms of average thickness of all
4 conditions. The average thickness of all conditions is at 45.72 microns with standard deviation of 2.295 microns.

Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 and Total

Conditions
T=130,S=14.5
T=140,S=14.5
T=130,S=16.5
T=140,S=16.5
Total

Mean StDev
44.79
48.10
43.75
46.25
45.72

38

40

42

44
46
48
Thickness (microns)

50

52

54

Figure 8. Histogram of 4 Conditions

1.515 48
1.704 48
1.437 48
1.792 48
2.295 192

The sufficient test on the residual error as shown in Figure 9 indicates that random errors are identically
independently normally distributed with constant variance or homoskedasticity which possess the proper properties of
statistical model.
After adjusting temperature and speed of the conveyors at 130 degrees Celsius and 16.5 Hz and conduct run test for
one month. The defectives of the shrink film packaging have reduced to 0.3 percent per month or 261 packages per
month.

Normal Probability Plot of the Residuals

99

95
90
80

Percent

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5

-0.050

-0.025

0.000
Residual

0.025

0.050

(a) Normality Assumption

Residuals Versus the Order of the Data

0.04
0.03
0.02

Residual

0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
1

7
8
9
10
Observation Order

11

12

(b) Independence Assumption

13

14

15

16

Residuals Versus the Fitted Values

0.04
0.03
0.02

Residual

0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
1.10

1.15

1.20
Fitted Value

1.25

1.30

(c) Homogeneity of Variances or homoskedasticity Assumption

Figure 9. Sufficiency Test of the Model

5. CONCLUSION
Given appropriate conditions set under suggested experimental design, cracks and holes of the shrink film (LLDPE) as
the final packaging are reduced. The appropriate conditions are setting temperature of the shrink tunnel at 130 degrees
Celsius and setting speed of the conveyor at 16.5 Hz. This would lead to equally dispersed of shrink film thickness.
Results from a system design for A4 paper packaging of this study indicate three findings. First, shrinkage ratio is a
major response variable for solving cracks and holes on the shrink film. Second, if temperature in the shrink tunnel
increases, shrinkage percentage and thickness of the shrink film will also increase. On the other hands, if speed of the
conveyors increases, shrinkage percentage and thickness of the shrink film will decrease. Finally, the experimental
design used in this study can also be applied to other types of shrink film. This is because shrinkage ratio depends on
two major factors which are temperature in the shrink tunnel and speed of the conveyor. This implies that for any A4
processor with different production rate from our sample can also implement findings of this study. This means that
defectives on shrink film packaging can be reduced by adjusting temperature and speed according to production rate of
each processor.

REFERENCES

1.

Phisitbuntul, S. (1982). Study Report of Pulp and Paper Industry, Economic Research Division, Research and Planning
Department, Bangkok.

2.

Paklamjeak, M. and Swatditad, A. (1990). Manual of Plastic for Packaging, Thai Packaging Centre Thailand
Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, Bangkok.
Torres, A., Colls, N. and Mendez, F. (2006). Properties Predictor for HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE Blends for Shrink Film
Applications, Journal of Plastic Film & Sheeting, 22; 29-37.
Davis, C.G. (1978). Packaging Machinery Operations, Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute, Washington,
USA.
Japanese Standards Association (1995). Japanese Industrial Standard-Heat Shrinkable Plastic Films for Packaging
JIS Z 1790: 1995. Minato-ku, Tokyo.
Higashioji, T., Bhushan B. (2002). Creep and Shrinkage Behavior of Improved Ultrathin Polymeric Films, Journal
of Applied Polymer Science, 84; 14771498.
Mody, R., Lofgren, E. A. and Jabarin, S.A. (2001). Shrinkage Behavior of Oriented Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate).
Journal of Plastic Film & Sheeting 17; 152-163.
Maruhashi, Y. and ASADA, T. (1996). Structure and Properties of Biaxially Stretched Poly(Ethy1ene
Terephthalate) Sheets. Polymer Engineering and Science, 36; 483-494.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.