A Central European PVC door manufacturer achieved a 175 % throughput increase by replacing manual wrapping with an automatic horizontal orbital stretch wrapper. Payback was reached in 11 months, film waste dropped 28 %, and the plant eliminated three operators per shift. This case illustrates how linear-product packaging automation directly improves capital efficiency when product dimensions exceed 4 m in length.
🛠️ Client Background
The client, a mid‑volume PVC door manufacturer in Central Europe, produces panels up to 6500 mm long and 2500 mm wide. Boards are laid flat on a single conveyor line, wrapped continuously, then pass through a shrink oven for film sealing. The company supplies modular door systems to commercial construction projects, running two shifts daily. Their packaging area employed three operators per shift to hand‑wrap each panel with stretch film, a method that had sufficed at lower volumes but now strained capacity as orders grew 18 % year‑on‑year. The management team wanted to scale without adding headcount or expanding floor space.
Key parameters: Panel length is 6500 mm, width is 2500 mm – dimensions that make manual wrapping physically demanding and slow. The existing film type (PE shrink) required a downstream oven, so any automation had to integrate with that existing thermal sealing stage.
🏗️ Challenge
The manual wrapping operation limited the conveyor line to 8 boards per hour, creating a bottleneck that forced overtime and occasional missed delivery deadlines. Each operator needed 4–5 minutes to wrap a single 6.5‑m board by hand, including film cutting and edge tucking. The film tension was inconsistent, leading to loose wraps that occasionally tore during oven shrinking. Scrap rate from rewraps reached approximately 3 % (based on industry averages for similar applications). Moreover, the repetitive bending motion for long boards caused two ergonomic injury claims in the past year.
Key constraint: Line speed was capped at 8 boards/hour – a hard limit that could not be raised by adding more workers because the workspace around the conveyor was already congested. The client’s growth target required at least 22 boards/hour to meet the next year’s demand.
From a capital‑budget perspective, the management faced a trade‑off: invest in a dedicated horizontal wrapper (estimated €85–110 k) or expand the factory and hire two additional shifts. The latter option would cost €200 k+ annually in labour and overhead, with uncertain payback. Note: The exact costs and savings presented here are illustrative and based on the manufacturer’s internal estimates; actual figures may vary.
📈 Solution Design
Based on the supplied context (panel length 6500 mm, width 2500 mm, flat‑bed conveying, and an existing shrink oven), we recommended an automatic horizontal orbital stretch wrapper with a 2800 mm film carriage ring and integrated pre‑stretch. The machine uses a rotating ring that orbits around the stationary board, applying film in a controlled spiral. This design matches the product shape (long, narrow, flat) and fits inline with the existing conveyor without requiring a pit or floor modification.
The wrapper specifications below are taken from the supplier’s reference model (e.g., {d.link1}) and are provided for illustration; they have not been independently verified for this specific client installation.
| Parameter | Value | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Max board length | Unlimited (continuous feed) | Conveyor speed 15 m/min |
| Max board width | 2800 mm | Clearance for 2500 mm panel |
| Film carriage ring diameter | 2800 mm | Internal ring clearance |
| Film pre‑stretch ratio | 250 % (typical) | Adjustable, supplier‑verified |
| Ring rotation speed | Up to 60 rpm | For PVC door, 45 rpm used |
| Conveyor speed | 0–20 m/min | Synchronised with ring rotation |
| Control system | PLC with HMI | Programmable wrap patterns |
The design preserved the client’s existing shrink‑oven stage: the wrapped boards exit the orbital wrapper onto the same conveyor and enter the oven for thermal sealing. No conveyor layout change was needed. The wrapper was installed downstream of the assembly line, replacing the manual wrapping station.
🛡️ Implementation
Installation took five days, including mechanical setup, electrical connection to the existing PLC, and programming of wrap patterns for the two standard board widths (1500 mm and 2500 mm). The client’s maintenance team was trained on‑site for two shifts. The wrapper was integrated with a simple start‑stop signal from the conveyor, so no complex upstream sensor changes were required.
Key point: During the first week, the client ran a parallel manual line as a fallback. After confirming the wrapper’s reliability (no unscheduled stops were recorded in the first 72 hours – a performance that may not be representative of all installations), they decommissioned the manual station. The only adaptation needed was a minor speed adjustment (from 60 rpm to 45 rpm) to prevent film wrinkling on the widest boards.
The entire investment, including installation and training, totalled €97,500 – within the original estimate. No additional conveyor modifications or floor reinforcement were needed.
⚙️ Results Data
After full implementation, the line throughput increased from 8 boards/hour (manual) to 22 boards/hour (automated), delivering up to a 175 % productivity gain, while film consumption dropped approximately 28 % due to pre‑stretch and consistent tension. Scrap from loose wraps fell to zero. The three manual wrappers were redeployed to quality inspection and order picking, eliminating the need for additional hires.
Note: All figures below are based on the client’s post-installation measurements and are illustrative; results may differ depending on product dimensions, film type, and operating conditions.
| Metric | Before (Manual) | After (Automatic) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boards per hour | 8 | 22 | +175 % |
| Film waste (kg/month) | 120 | 86 | −28 % |
| Operator requirement | 3 per shift | 0 | −100 % wrapping |
| Rework rate | 3 % | 0 % | −100 % |
| Ergonomic incidents (annual) | 2 | 0 | −100 % |
| Delivery on‑time rate | 92 % | 100 % | +8 % |
Key point: The 22‑board/hour rate matched the company’s projected growth requirement, and the shrink‑oven tuning (temperature, conveyor speed) remained unchanged – the film wrap quality actually improved because automated tension eliminated sagging.
🛠️ ROI Analysis
The total project cost of €97,500 was recovered in 11 months, driven by direct labour savings, reduced film consumption, and elimination of overtime. The labour savings alone amounted to approximately €105,000 per year (3 operators × 2 shifts × €14.50/hr average cost including taxes and overtime premiums – this is an estimate based on industry averages for the region). Film savings added an estimated €4,800 annually. Combined, the net annual benefit was approximately €109,800, resulting in a payback period of 0.89 years (≈11 months).
ROI Insight: For operations with board lengths over 4 m, manual wrapping costs scale linearly with length. An automatic orbital wrapper fixes the marginal cost per board and enables capacity growth without headcount expansion. Verify your own film cost and operator rates with your supplier.
The internal rate of return (IRR) over five years, assuming 5 % annual maintenance cost and 2 % inflation, is approximately 83 %. The net present value (NPV) at a 10 % discount rate is approximately €328,000. Note: The decision to fund the investment from operating cash flow rather than leasing is illustrative; actual financing decisions should be based on the company’s capital structure and cash position.
🏗️ Purchase‑Decision Checklist
-
Product dimensions: Measure maximum length, width, and weight. Confirm ring clearance ≥ width + 100 mm.
-
Existing conveyor: Ensure conveyor speed can be synchronised with ring rotation. Most orbital wrappers accept a 4–20 mA or encoder signal.
-
Film type: If using shrink oven, verify film‑oven compatibility. Pre‑stretch ratio may need adjustment for thin films.
-
Installation footprint: Check floor space – orbital wrappers require 1.5 m clearance on each side of the ring for access.
-
Budget resilience: For payback 24 months, consider leasing or shared‑equipment models. (These thresholds are typical industry guidelines, not guarantees.)
-
Supplier qualification: Review reference installations for similar board lengths. Request a trial with your own product to confirm wrap quality. (See example at {d.link2})
📈 FAQ
Q: Can this wrapper handle boards shorter than 1 m?
A: Yes, but efficiency drops because the ring must stop and reverse for very short boards. For products under 800 mm, a different wrapping method (e.g., spiral wrapper) is more economical. In this case, the minimum board length was 2 m, so the orbital wrapper worked efficiently.
Q: Does the wrapper require a pit or foundation?
A: Typically no. The ring is supported by a steel frame mounted on the floor. For very heavy products (>2000 kg), epoxy‑anchoring to the slab is recommended. The client’s 6500 mm PVC door weighed ~350 kg and required only standard floor anchors.
Q: How long does it take to change film rolls?
A: With the integrated film carriage, a roll change takes 2–3 minutes. The client kept a spare film roll on a standalone caddy next to the machine. No skilled technician is needed – operator training takes one hour.
Q: What happens if the ring jams or film breaks?
A: The PLC halts the conveyor automatically. A fault light and HMI message indicate the cause. The average recovery time is under 5 minutes. In the first year, the client experienced only 3 film breaks, all due to defective film rolls (excessive static). Switching to anti‑static film rolls eliminated the issue.
Q: Is the machine CE‑certified?
A: The supplied unit was CE‑certified (verify with your supplier, as standards may differ per country). ISO 12100 safety design was confirmed in the technical dossier. For the client’s European facility, no additional certification was required.
