afsm100

Information about afsm100

Published on January 23, 2008

Author: Marietta1

Source: authorstream.com

Content

AFSM 100 Automation Requirements:  AFSM 100 Automation Requirements March 21, 2002 Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Extension of automation flats rates. AFSM 100 specifications will replace FSM 881 standards. Singulation - key component. Mailing industry assistance was crucial. Mailers and the USPS recognize the need to prepare flats to best support current and future flats processing. Improve service Reduce costs Federal Register - Proposed Rule Introduction Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Baltimore pilot test - 2/26/01 to 3/13/01 Designed to screen a great number of variables Proved data collection methodology Provided some data for analysis Denver test to finalize recommendations - 7/9/01 to 8/1/01 Define physical characteristic limits Determine acceptable polywrap characteristics Palatine weight test - 2/25/02 to 3/12/02 Insufficient data on heavy products from Denver Determine maximum weight of mail piece that can be processed with reasonable efficiency. Federal Register - Proposed Rule Background Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  FSM 881 and AFSM 100 have different definitions for length relative to bound edge. FSM 881 AFSM 100 Bound Edge Height Max. = 12” Cut Edge Length Max. = 15” Cut Edge Height Max. = 12” Bound Edge Length Max. = 15” Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Length and Height Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Envelope Size in Inches Envelope Size in Inches Envelope Size in Inches Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Length Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Envelope Length in Inches Envelope Length in Inches Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Length Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Envelope Height in Inches Envelope Height in Inches Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Height Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Height Flat Mail Piece Physical Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Min. Max. Characteristics Test Results 6” 15” Envelopes longer than 15” had jam rates exceeding 20%. Newspapers 15” or longer reduced throughput.. Cards and envelopes less than 6” were difficult to process. 5” 12” Envelopes higher than 12” had jam rates exceeding 3% Cards and envelopes less than 5” were difficult to process. Length Height Min. 6” 5” Max. 15” 12” AFSM 100 Current 881 Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Mail-piece Thickness in Inches Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Thickness Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Mail-piece Thickness in Inches Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Thickness Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Thickness Flat Mail Piece Physical Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Min. Max. Characteristics Test Results 6” 15” Envelopes longer than 15” had jam rates exceeding 20%. Newspapers 15” or longer reduced throughput.. Cards and envelopes less than 6” were difficult to process. 5” 12” Envelopes higher than 12” had jam rates exceeding 3% Cards and envelopes less than 5” were difficult to process. .009” .75” Jam rates for envelopes and bound pieces increase as thickness approaches .75”. Doubles for all pieces .03” or less exceeded 2%. Length Height Thickness Min. 6” 5” .009” Max. 15” 12” .75” AFSM 100 Current 881 Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Weight test results Federal Register - Proposed Rule Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Weight test results Federal Register - Proposed Rule Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Weight Flat Mail Piece Physical Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Min. Max. Characteristics Test Results 6” 15” Envelopes longer than 15” had jam rates exceeding 20%. Newspapers 15” or longer reduced throughput.. Cards and envelopes less than 6” were difficult to process. 5” 12” Envelopes higher than 12” had jam rates exceeding 3% Cards and envelopes less than 5” were difficult to process. .009” .75” Jam rates for envelopes and bound pieces increase as thickness approaches .75”. Doubles for all pieces .03” or less exceeded 2%. None 16 oz. Length Height Thickness Weight Min. 6” 5” .009” None Jam rates on envelopes increased to unacceptable level above 20 ounces. Bound piece max. may increase after stress test & analysis.. Max. 15” 12” .75” 20 oz AFSM 100 Current 881 Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Rigidity and Flexibility Flat Mail Piece Physical Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Min. Max. Characteristics Test Results 6” 15” Envelopes longer than 15” had jam rates exceeding 20%. Newspapers 15” or longer reduced throughput.. Cards and envelopes less than 6” were difficult to process. 5” 12” Envelopes higher than 12” had jam rates exceeding 3% Cards and envelopes less than 5” were difficult to process. .009” .75” Jam rates for envelopes and bound pieces increase as thickness approaches .75”. Doubles for all pieces .03” or less exceeded 2%. None 16 oz. 881 Curve Test Length Height Thickness Weight Rigidity Min. 6” 5” .009” None 881 Curve Test Bound piece max. may increase after stress test. Jam rates on envelopes increased to unacceptable level above 20 ounces. More analysis needed to refine “rigidity” for AFSM 100. Max. 15” 12” .75” 20 oz AFSM 100 Current 881 881 Droop Test Flexibility 881 Droop Test More analysis needed to refine “flexibility” for AFSM 100. Cover basis weight may be more important than “flexibility” Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Physical Characteristics - Summary Flat Mail Piece Physical Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Min. Max. Characteristics Test Results 6” 15” Envelopes longer than 15” had jam rates exceeding 20%. Newspapers 15” or longer reduced throughput.. Cards and envelopes less than 6” were difficult to process. 5” 12” Envelopes higher than 12” had jam rates exceeding 3% Cards and envelopes less than 5” were difficult to process. .009” .75” Jam rates for envelopes and bound pieces increase as thickness approaches .75”. Doubles for all pieces .03” or less exceeded 2%. None 16 oz. 881 Curve Test Length Height Thickness Weight Rigidity Min. 6” 5” .009” None 881 Curve Test Bound piece max. may increase after stress test. Jam rates on envelopes increased to unacceptable level above 20 ounces. More analysis needed to refine “rigidity” for AFSM 100. Max. 15” 12” .75” 20 oz AFSM 100 Current 881 881 Droop Test Flexibility 881 Droop Test More analysis needed to refine “flexibility” for AFSM 100. Cover basis weight may be more important than “flexibility” Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap Characteristics During the mail characteristics test, a total of 25 polywrap films were tested, either at Baltimore or at Denver. In Denver, 19 polywrap films with widely varying characteristics were used to wrap five bound mail pieces Standard size - thin, medium, and thick Digest size - thin and thick. Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Mean of Jam Frequencies for Mail Pieces Without Polywrap Mean of Doubles Frequencies for Mail Pieces Without Polywrap Both Graphs Ordered by Increasing Jam Frequencies Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap Characteristics - Overall Results Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Blocking factor - Grams Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap Characteristics - Blocking Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Blocking factor - Grams Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap Characteristics - Blocking Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Polywrap Characteristics Recommendations for AFSM 100 Characteristics Test Results < 0.28 Film to Metal CoF above .28 showed increase in no-reads. 0.20 - 0.40 Pilot test, CoF’s above.5 had significant jams and doubles rates. Final test, CoF’s above .4 for low blocking had higher doubles rate Kinetic CoF - Film to Metal Kinetic CoF - Film to Film Recmnd Current 1 < 0.28 0.20 - 0.40 < 70 Only affects readability, all poly’s tested met the spec. Haze 2 < 70 >40,000 TD secant modulus’ below 40,000 psi showed a marked increase in no-reads. >50,000 MD secant modulus’ below 50,000 psi showed a marked increase in no-reads. Secant Mod. - 1% TD, psi Secant Mod. - 1% MD, psi 3 >40,000 >50,000 >2,000 Test data showed films with highest tensile strength had lowest doubles rate, but the films also had the lowest blocking factors. Requires further testing of films with low blocking and varying tensile strength. >3,000 Tensile Str. TD, psi Tensile Str. MD, psi 4 >2,000 >3,000 .90 - .95 Normal density range - insufficient data to make a change. Density, g/cc 5 .90- .95 >.001” .001 to .002 gauges tested - no measurable performance change. Nom. Gauge 6 >.001” <2.0 kv All poly’s tested met this specification. Static Charge 7 <2.0 kv None Blocking factor not in 881 specification. Data showed significantly fewer doubles and fewer jams when blocking was below 15 grams. Blocking, g 8 <15 Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap Characteristics - Summary Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Selvage (overhang) requirements to remain the same as the FSM 881 requirements. The seam must be placed on the non-address side parallel to the long dimension. Federal Register - Proposed Rule Polywrap - Wrap and seam requirements Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Federal Register - Proposed Rule Newspaper Requirements Final folded edge on the bottom with intermediate fold to the right of the address on the address side. Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Broadsheet Tabloid Quarterfold Federal Register - Proposed Rule Newspaper Requirements Federal Register - Proposed Rule:  Questions? Federal Register - Proposed Rule

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Marietta1

Solar Energy Slide Show 1 3
26. 01. 2008
0 views

Solar Energy Slide Show 1 3

SLIDESHOW
08. 05. 2008
0 views

SLIDESHOW

EU
07. 05. 2008
0 views

EU

Cummins AWI update
02. 05. 2008
0 views

Cummins AWI update

00000032 src
02. 05. 2008
0 views

00000032 src

1101e4short
30. 04. 2008
0 views

1101e4short

1184287012505 0
24. 04. 2008
0 views

1184287012505 0

Skretting
22. 04. 2008
0 views

Skretting

qiweichen
21. 04. 2008
0 views

qiweichen

Lecture 5 Ideology and Practice
17. 04. 2008
0 views

Lecture 5 Ideology and Practice

16 Consumer Oriented E Commerce
04. 02. 2008
0 views

16 Consumer Oriented E Commerce

christmas vocabulary
30. 01. 2008
0 views

christmas vocabulary

Lecture4 5
12. 02. 2008
0 views

Lecture4 5

comets
10. 01. 2008
0 views

comets

angelfish
10. 01. 2008
0 views

angelfish

stakeholder mapping spring2007
12. 01. 2008
0 views

stakeholder mapping spring2007

Lecture 8
12. 01. 2008
0 views

Lecture 8

NOO
13. 01. 2008
0 views

NOO

Disparities Final 131125 7
14. 01. 2008
0 views

Disparities Final 131125 7

Outer Solar System
16. 01. 2008
0 views

Outer Solar System

MFC 2005Construction
18. 01. 2008
0 views

MFC 2005Construction

Tech4
18. 01. 2008
0 views

Tech4

Fin525Fall2006Week1
24. 01. 2008
0 views

Fin525Fall2006Week1

APCh09
28. 01. 2008
0 views

APCh09

Liver and the Heart
15. 01. 2008
0 views

Liver and the Heart

heather2
16. 01. 2008
0 views

heather2

4101
07. 02. 2008
0 views

4101

100707 Samson
28. 01. 2008
0 views

100707 Samson

Grooming
29. 01. 2008
0 views

Grooming

Session 1b
07. 02. 2008
0 views

Session 1b

Christine Gurnett HSE
07. 02. 2008
0 views

Christine Gurnett HSE

Japanese Theatre Dance
13. 02. 2008
0 views

Japanese Theatre Dance

ERuel Critical Periods
13. 02. 2008
0 views

ERuel Critical Periods

Lecture 1 2005
14. 02. 2008
0 views

Lecture 1 2005

RMSI DisasterManagement
11. 02. 2008
0 views

RMSI DisasterManagement

infrastruct toby brownecooper
08. 03. 2008
0 views

infrastruct toby brownecooper

07 FosteringCreativity
10. 03. 2008
0 views

07 FosteringCreativity

SOME HINTS ABOUT ISTANBUL LIFE
04. 02. 2008
0 views

SOME HINTS ABOUT ISTANBUL LIFE

Prevention
15. 03. 2008
0 views

Prevention

2007 HRPAO Presentation
07. 04. 2008
0 views

2007 HRPAO Presentation

TSG VIVA
27. 03. 2008
0 views

TSG VIVA

Thalia EQs Bldgs
30. 01. 2008
0 views

Thalia EQs Bldgs

electronicfreire
20. 02. 2008
0 views

electronicfreire

Pecan2002
08. 01. 2008
0 views

Pecan2002

outbriefmar07
07. 02. 2008
0 views

outbriefmar07

oilsandscalgary2
23. 01. 2008
0 views

oilsandscalgary2

SO2DB
06. 02. 2008
0 views

SO2DB

S Esseh
11. 01. 2008
0 views

S Esseh

sivan progsem 2003
15. 01. 2008
0 views

sivan progsem 2003

smallNEO
17. 01. 2008
0 views

smallNEO

Slovenia
03. 03. 2008
0 views

Slovenia

200710892712598
29. 01. 2008
0 views

200710892712598

BR New ParentsV2 C 4 0
15. 01. 2008
0 views

BR New ParentsV2 C 4 0

pps 319
14. 02. 2008
0 views

pps 319

Chapter01and02street 08Spring
19. 03. 2008
0 views

Chapter01and02street 08Spring

PRES INGLESE overview
28. 01. 2008
0 views

PRES INGLESE overview

CASIX poster pages
05. 02. 2008
0 views

CASIX poster pages

ATC 2006 Corporate teams
21. 01. 2008
0 views

ATC 2006 Corporate teams