A one-time capital expenditure, ongoing labor costs\u2014but the material that is used anew with every package produced is the packaging material itself. In tube-bag and flow-pack lines, film typically accounts for 30 to 50 % of ongoing packaging costs, in line with industry standards. Six approaches measurably reduce this cost without compromising the package\u2019s functionality.<\/p>\n
Film consumption is calculated as area times thickness, and area is the greater factor: A bag length that exceeds the required seal margin by 5 mm costs 5 mm \u00d7 bag width \u00d7 film thickness for each bag\u2014at 40 cycles per minute, this adds up to kilometers of film over the course of a year. The key is discipline: check every seal margin to ensure it\u2019s exactly the design-required dimension, and dimension the bottom gussets and top seam based on precise calculations rather than generous estimates. A format adjustment of just a few millimeters saves a single-digit percentage of film area\u2014without any visible change to the bag.<\/p>\n
The film roll comes in standard widths from the manufacturer; the machine width and bag format determine the required width. Two adjustment factors: Set the bag width to the most economical roll width (to avoid waste at the roll edge), and for multi-web solutions\u2014such as stick packs with 4 to 10 webs\u2014optimize the number of webs against the web width. A bag that is 20 mm narrower with the same fill volume (taller instead of wider) saves a proportional amount of space.<\/p>\n
Every layer in a composite structure adds to the cost: barrier layers, topcoats, and interlayer adhesives. The composite structure should be regularly reviewed\u2014packaging requirements change (shorter shelf life due to cold-chain products, altered storage times), and film manufacturers are constantly offering thinner barrier materials. A reduction in total thickness by 10 % while maintaining the same functionality lowers the film price roughly proportionally. The review involves submitting a request to the film supplier with the current list of requirements\u2014not every layer that was necessary in 2018 is still required today.<\/p>\n
Sealing times set too long and sealing margins set too wide result in hidden film costs: wide seams take up space, and long sealing times reduce the cycle rate\u2014both indirectly increase film consumption per hour of production time. The machine\u2019s recipe management system maintains the optimal sealing parameters for each film type; an annual recipe audit conducted jointly with the film supplier takes one day and identifies areas for improvement.<\/p>\n
Every start-up following a format or film change produces scrap until the seal is stable: typically 10 to 30 bags per change, according to industry standards. With two changes per shift, that amounts to up to 60 bags per shift in scrap alone. The solutions: Switch recipes instead of formats whenever possible (Format Consolidation<\/a>), web alignment via sensors rather than through reject cycles, and a standardized startup procedure with a documented checklist. The methodology behind this is the same as that used in the OEE<\/a> \u2013 Every minute of committee time counts as a paid slide.<\/p>\n Three Leverage Points in Purchasing: Batch Consolidation<\/strong> instead of individual orders (discount tiers offered by film manufacturers), Competition Qualification<\/strong> multiple film suppliers for the same composite (to reduce dependence and maintain price pressure) and Incoming inspection of each batch<\/strong> on seal windows and thickness. The incoming inspection takes just a few minutes per pallet and prevents the most costly mistake: a line running with the wrong film and producing scrap until someone notices.<\/p>\n The Vertical filling and capping machine<\/a> controls three film-related parameters: film length accuracy (servo-driven unwinding versus mechanical unwinding reduces the tolerance band), web correction (eliminating film fluctuations instead of rejecting bags), and film end management (roll change without wasting the remaining film). When purchasing a machine, these are the three functions that pay for themselves over the machine\u2019s lifetime\u2014more so than any price negotiation regarding the machine itself.<\/p>\n Without compromising functionality, the industry standard is a 5- to 15-% range achieved through format design, composite testing, and startup optimization; purchasing benefits also contribute to this. Larger changes require format changes or transitions to single-material packaging, which have implications for logistics and recycling.<\/p>\n Only if functionality is maintained: Thinner film tears more easily and seals faster\u2014and producing scrap is more expensive than saving on film. The composite material must be evaluated based on the list of requirements, not just on thickness alone.<\/p>\n 10 to 30 bags per change are standard in the industry; the total cost is calculated as bag area \u00d7 film price \u00d7 number of changes per year. Calculating this figure just once will either justify or refute any investment in web correction and recipe management.<\/p>\n The composite price may be higher than that of traditional laminates\u2014the advantage lies in recyclability and upcoming regulatory requirements. Save costs by using single-material structures with thinner designs and simpler seal windows, not by focusing on the price per kilogram.<\/p>\n Related pages:<\/strong> Format Change on Packaging Machines<\/a> | OEE of Packaging Lines<\/a> | VFFS Guide<\/a> | Flowpack Guide<\/a><\/p>\nStep 6: Purchasing and Quality Control<\/h2>\n
How the machine contributes to this<\/h2>\n
Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n
How much can we realistically save on film costs?<\/h3>\n
Does thinner film always lower costs?<\/h3>\n
How much does film waste cost per format change?<\/h3>\n
Does using a single material offer cost advantages?<\/h3>\n
\n