Metering technology targets flexibility advances

Greater flexibility in the number of cans, bottles and cartons for separating and loading into case or tray packs is the key aim of an expanded pin metering product, according to the supplier behind the technology.

Responding to customer demand for metering products designed for larger packs, Douglas Machine says that recent modifications for its Slipstream system have cut down on the size restrictions of its earlier designs.

”[The Slipstream] can handle cans, bottles, and cartons on one machine by simply changing a snap-on slipsheet, making the machines much more flexible,” stated the group.

The new system is designed to process packs ranging from small pet-food size cans right up to two litre beverage bottles at between 30 to 105 packages per minute, the company claims.

As a result of the manufacturer’s ongoing modifications to the technology, Douglas says it can also offer manufacturers worldwide a flexible system that allows for a 32-can case of soft drinks to be wrapped at a width of eight packs at a time.

Extension challenge

Douglas Machine says that while it has been using its pinless metering machine technology to stack products into pad, u-board or film wrapped packaging since 2005, there had been a major challenge to overcome size limitations in the technology.

The modified Slipstream machine is designed to take a mass flow of packaged products and separating them, for example, into 12-pack or 24-pack containers, depending on consumer needs, the company claimed.

A spokesperson for the group claimed that in addition to metering, the Slipstream could also be used to shrink-wrap multiple product streams for film only bundles.

The system itself can be used on Douglas’ own Contour shrink-wrap technology and Axiom case and tray packers.

A spokesperson for the group told FoodProductionDaily.com that several versions of the Slipstream had been developed ranging in package speed, with cost therefore varying depending on specific applications.

The company claimed that the product was fairly unique on the market and could not be compared in terms of cost to other similar technologies.