Packaging equipment is normally judged by what happens at the end of a production line.

How quickly can it wrap?

How many operators does it require?

Can it protect the product?

At Atlas Roofing’s Arlington, Texas, EPS insulation facility, a recent automation project shows that the impact can extend much further into plant operations.

The company has installed a RoRo StretchPack XL S2 system from Tentoma to automate packaging of expanded polystyrene insulation-panel bundles.

What began as a replacement for manual bagging was subsequently expanded so that one packaging system now serves two separate production lines, automatically adjusting to different panel sizes and switching between two film configurations.

For manufacturers of boards, panels, rolls and other large-format products, that is arguably the more interesting part of the project.

The investment is not simply replacing labor with a machine.

It is consolidating packaging capacity, creating additional flexibility and changing how finished products can be stored before shipment.

Manual Bagging Was the First Problem

Atlas says its Arlington facility previously relied on manual bagging for part of its EPS production, while another production stream used a tunnel-style wrapping system.

According to Paul Soriano, maintenance manager at the site, the older tunnel wrapper did not provide the weatherproof package the company required.

That matters for EPS insulation panels because packaging has to do more than bundle several lightweight sheets together.

Finished products may need protection during:

handling;

warehouse storage;

outdoor staging;

truck loading;

transport;

and waiting time before installation.

Some Atlas customers also require logo-printed film, adding another variable to the packaging specification.

The company therefore needed equipment capable of combining protection, automation and multiple film requirements rather than simply placing plastic around a bundle.

The Project Expanded After Installation

The RoRo StretchPack XL S2 was initially installed to automate the EPS panels that had previously been manually bagged.

Atlas then expanded the project.

The wrapping system serving a second production line was becoming obsolete, so the new machine was modified and reconfigured to accept products from that line as well.

That changed the economics of the installation.

Instead of:

production line 1 → packaging machine 1

and

production line 2 → packaging machine 2

Atlas moved toward:

two production lines → one flexible packaging cell.

According to the company, the change increased packaging capacity while reducing the labor required compared with manual bagging.

Atlas has not published the before-and-after throughput, labor hours or investment payback.

Those numbers would be needed before quantifying the financial return.

But the configuration demonstrates an increasingly important principle in end-of-line automation:

flexibility can sometimes be more valuable than simply making one line faster.

Different Panel Sizes Do Not Require Manual Machine Setup

The two production lines do not manufacture identical bundles.

Panel dimensions vary.

Atlas and Tentoma addressed that by connecting product data with the wrapping system through PROFINET, an industrial Ethernet communication protocol widely used to exchange data between automation equipment.

Product dimensions are transmitted to the packaging line, allowing the machine to adjust automatically for the incoming bundle.

This removes an important source of manual intervention.

A flexible packaging line is far less useful if every different product dimension requires an operator to stop production and manually reconfigure equipment.

For manufacturers running multiple product formats, automatic recipe or dimension handling can become particularly important when batch sizes decrease.

The challenge is no longer only:

How fast does the wrapper operate?

It is:

How quickly can the complete line move from one product specification to another?

Two Film Units Add Another Layer of Automation

Atlas also uses two film sizes loaded onto separate film units.

The system can select the appropriate film according to the dimensions of the incoming product and whether printed packaging film is required for the customer.

Tentoma’s published technical data for the XL S2 configuration confirms that the machine platform can be equipped with two film-roll sizes.

The manufacturer also describes the system as fully automatic apart from film-roll replacement.

For Atlas, this is important because film selection becomes part of the automated product recipe.

That reduces the risk that production flexibility simply moves the bottleneck downstream.

A plant can manufacture multiple panel formats efficiently, but if packaging requires lengthy manual changes every time a size or branding requirement changes, the finishing operation can still restrict throughput.

Weatherproof Packaging Changes the Warehouse Equation

Perhaps the most interesting benefit is not located on the packaging line at all.

Atlas says the new wrapping system produces sufficiently weatherproof packaging for finished EPS products to be stored outdoors before shipment.

That enables the Arlington operation to save indoor facility space.

This makes packaging an infrastructure decision.

Industrial floor space has value.

Finished-goods inventory occupying indoor manufacturing or warehouse space can compete with:

raw materials;

work in progress;

production equipment;

maintenance areas;

and other finished products.

If better protective packaging allows suitable inventory to move into controlled outdoor staging, the company can change how it uses its existing building without physically expanding it.

For manufacturers considering packaging automation, this is an important calculation that can easily be missed.

The return on packaging equipment may not come only from:

lower labor;

higher wrapping speed;

or reduced packaging-material consumption.

It can also come from what the package allows the factory to do differently after wrapping.

Outdoor Storage Still Depends on the Complete Package

That benefit should not be generalized too far.

Atlas says the packaging used at Arlington allows the company to store its wrapped products outside before shipment.

That does not mean every stretch-film system or every product can automatically be transferred outdoors.

The actual result depends on:

film specification;

sealing;

puncture resistance;

product sensitivity;

storage duration;

UV exposure;

wind;

handling damage;

and local weather.

Tentoma describes its RoRo StretchPack process as using tubular stretch-hood film that can create six-sided sealed packaging in a single operation. For certain building-material applications, the company positions that package as protection against moisture and environmental exposure.

But individual manufacturers still need to validate the package against their own storage conditions.

A package that survives several days outside in Texas may not automatically meet another company’s exposure requirements.

Large, Lightweight Products Create a Distinct Packaging Problem

EPS panels create an unusual packaging challenge.

The material itself is lightweight.

The bundles can be physically large.

That means packaging efficiency cannot be evaluated through weight alone.

The package has to keep a large-format product stable without damaging the panel while also protecting its surfaces from weather and handling.

This characteristic is shared by several other industrial product categories:

insulation boards;

wood panels;

doors;

pipes;

profiles;

mattresses;

and large rolls.

For these products, traditional carton packaging may be impractical because of the dimensions involved.

Film therefore performs both a containment and protection role.

The more interesting automation challenge is how to apply that film consistently as dimensions change.

One Machine for Two Lines Can Reduce Equipment Duplication

The Atlas installation also raises a broader capital-investment question.

When two manufacturing lines require similar downstream packaging, should each line have dedicated equipment?

Or can one sufficiently flexible machine serve both?

Dedicated equipment has advantages.

A failure on one wrapper does not automatically stop packaging from the second production line.

Each machine can also be optimized around one product range.

Shared equipment creates a different set of benefits.

It can reduce:

duplicated capital equipment;

maintenance points;

operator requirements;

floor-space usage;

and potentially spare-parts complexity.

But it also increases reliance on that shared machine.

If one packaging system serves two production lines, its uptime becomes more important.

Atlas has highlighted remote technical support as part of its arrangement with Tentoma. The machine can be connected through the internet so technicians can provide remote assistance.

That is not simply a service feature.

In a consolidated-line configuration, maintenance response becomes part of production-risk management.

Packaging Capacity Has to Be Designed for Both Lines

Another question follows naturally.

If two production lines feed one wrapper, the packaging machine needs enough capacity to handle their combined peak output.

Average production is not enough.

Suppose both manufacturing lines simultaneously reach the packaging area after a strong production period.

If the wrapper cannot absorb those peaks, finished panels accumulate upstream.

The shared packaging cell becomes the bottleneck.

Tentoma publishes output ranges for its RoRo StretchPack platform that depend strongly on product length and machine configuration, but Atlas has not disclosed its exact line rates or utilization.

So it would be inappropriate to claim that the new machine has eliminated all packaging bottlenecks.

What Atlas has confirmed is that packaging capacity increased and the system provides room to handle additional products in the future.

That future flexibility may be strategically valuable if product mix continues to expand.

Automation Does Not Mean Film Consumption Automatically Falls

There is another claim I would keep separate from this case.

Tentoma says its stretch-pack process can reduce film use compared with some orbital wrapping and heat-shrink applications, and cites savings of 25–60% in customer cases for certain building-material applications.

But Atlas has not published a film-consumption reduction for the Arlington installation.

Therefore, this project should not be presented as evidence that Atlas itself cut film use by a specific percentage.

The confirmed benefits are:

automation;

two-line consolidation;

greater packaging capacity;

reduced labor relative to manual bagging;

automatic size and film selection;

and weatherproof packaging supporting outdoor storage.

Any material-efficiency claim would require Atlas-specific before-and-after data.

That distinction keeps the sustainability argument credible.

Printed Film Shows Why Industrial Packaging Still Carries Brand Value

The use of customer-specific logo film is another small but relevant detail.

Industrial protective packaging is often treated as purely functional.

But even construction materials arrive at distributors, contractors and customer sites carrying a manufacturer’s identity.

The packaging can therefore perform several roles simultaneously:

protect the product;

hold the bundle together;

identify the manufacturer;

communicate product information;

and improve presentation on arrival.

Atlas’s requirement for printed and non-printed film variants demonstrates why end-of-line automation increasingly has to manage SKU information as well as physical dimensions.

That becomes especially relevant as manufacturers add private-label products or customer-specific branding.

What Should Manufacturers Measure Before Automating Packaging?

For manufacturers running manual bagging, obsolete tunnel wrappers or multiple isolated packaging stations, the Atlas case suggests that the investment calculation should extend beyond labor.

Start with six areas.

1. Packaging throughput

How many products leave each production line at average and peak output?

2. Format changes

How many dimensions and packaging recipes are processed every shift?

3. Labor

How many people are required to bag, wrap, move or reconfigure products?

4. Protection

Where are packages damaged by moisture, puncture, handling or outdoor exposure?

5. Space

How much indoor floor area is occupied by finished inventory only because the current package cannot tolerate outside staging?

6. Equipment duplication

Can several production lines realistically share one packaging asset without creating excessive downtime risk?

Those figures produce a much more complete business case than comparing machine speeds alone.

The Most Valuable Square Metres May Be Outside the Packaging Line

Atlas’s Arlington project is a useful example because the improvement does not stop once the film is sealed.

One automated system now serves two panel-production lines.

Product dimensions move electronically to the wrapper.

Film selection changes automatically.

Manual bagging requirements are reduced.

And finished packs can be staged outside before shipment.

Each change affects a different part of factory economics.

That is why industrial packaging deserves to be considered alongside production and logistics rather than as a final consumable added after manufacturing is finished.

Before Replacing Your Wrapper, Follow the Finished Product

For plant managers, packaging engineers and operations teams considering a similar automation project, do not begin with:

“How fast is the new machine?”

Follow one finished product from the moment it exits manufacturing until it leaves the site.

Ask:

How much manual handling occurs before it is shipment-ready?

How many packaging machines are serving similar products?

How much time is lost changing dimensions or film specifications?

What percentage of indoor warehouse space is occupied because the existing package cannot tolerate another storage environment?

If two lines shared one packaging cell, what would happen during peak production or machine downtime?

And what measurable savings come from labor, space, damage reduction and equipment consolidation—not simply wrapping speed?

Those answers determine whether automation changes only the packaging operation or the economics of the whole plant.

At Atlas Roofing, the most interesting outcome is not that a machine now puts film around EPS panels automatically.

It is that one packaging decision has changed labor requirements, line configuration, product handling and the way the Arlington facility uses its available space.

That is a much stronger definition of end-of-line automation.

Last Updated on 04/09/2026 by Jota Machinery