Bag-Filling System Critical Path Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing sack-filling systems rely on experience-based optimization of processing steps, which can lead to suboptimal throughput times and quality issues due to incorrect optimizations, particularly in cooling times.

Innovation Solution

A method to determine and optimize processing steps by monitoring cycle times, identifying critical paths with the longest execution times, and adjusting specific processing steps within these paths to enhance overall system speed and quality, utilizing sensors and a control unit to track and display execution times and buffers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If experience-based optimization of individual processing steps is used, then quality control can be maintained, but throughput time optimization is suboptimal and may even reduce quality

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality of bag sectionsVSAvoidthroughput time of bag filling system
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system continuously monitors cycle times of all processing steps and uses this feedback to automatically identify and optimize the critical path. Sensors track execution times, and the control unit adjusts processing steps based on real-time data, replacing experience-based optimization with data-driven feedback control that simultaneously improves throughput and maintains quality

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The bag filling system performs self-optimization by automatically monitoring its own cycle times and adjusting its processing steps without external intervention. The control unit autonomously identifies the critical path and modifies processing parameters to optimize throughput while maintaining quality standards

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

2Productivity

If cooling times are reduced to increase throughput, then system speed may improve, but quality of bag sections is unnecessarily reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperating speed of bag filling systemVSAvoidquality of bag sections
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different optimization strategies to different processing steps based on their specific requirements. Critical path steps that can be optimized are adjusted, while quality-critical steps like cooling maintain their required durations. This localized approach ensures throughput optimization without compromising quality standards

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Productivity

If optimization focuses on individual processing steps based on experience, then specific steps may be improved, but overall system throughput is not maximized

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoverall throughput timeVSAvoidcomplexity of optimization process
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the bag filling process into discrete processing steps with measurable cycle times. By breaking down the overall process into monitorable segments, the system can identify which specific steps contribute most to total execution time and target optimization efforts accordingly, reducing complexity through structured analysis

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP3005003B1Method for determining processing steps to be optimized in a bag-filling system
Publication Date: 2019.01.02 WINDMOELLER & HOELSCHER GMBH
  • EP3005003B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3005003B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3005003B1 patent drawingFigure 3~5

AI summary

The invention relates to a method for determining processing steps (10) to be optimized in a bag-filling system (100) for filling bag segments (210) with bulk material, comprising the following steps: monitoring the cycle times (12) of processing steps (10) of the bag-filling system (100), determining processing paths (20) of sequentially performed processing steps (10), determining the sum of the cycle times (12) of the processing steps (10) within processing paths (20) as a performance duration (22) of the respective processing path (20), comparing the determined performance duration (22) of the processing paths (20), determining the processing path (20) having the longest performance duration (22).