PLC-Controlled Lava Lamp Production Line

Overview

A four-person industrial-automation project: a PLC-driven production line for filling, sealing, inspecting, and packaging lava-lamp bottles, simulated in Factory I/O against a written request-for-tender. My work focused on the PLC ladder logic, the Factory I/O simulation build, and testing/debugging the automation sequence.

Team Project & My Contribution

This PLC-controlled lava-lamp production line was a four-person industrial-automation project. The team developed the full simulated process — conveyor sequencing, dual-fluid filling, sealing/stamping, inspection and rejection, packaging, buffer management, and the safety interlocks. My work focused on the PLC ladder logic, the Factory I/O simulation build, and testing the automation sequence — not the mechanical layout of every simulated station.

• PLC ladder-logic development — the state-machine control (Idle → Fill T0 → Fill T1 → Seal → Pick-and-Place → Inspect → Sort → Reset), interlocks, and anti-repeat protection.
• Factory I/O simulation development and integration — building and wiring the digital-twin line (emitter, conveyors, fill tanks, pick-and-place, pusher, chute) to the ladder logic.
• Sequence implementation — the timer-driven fill, seal, and pick-and-place motion sequences.
• Automation logic testing and debugging across the full simulated cycle.

System Architecture

Testing & Results

• The simulated line met its target cycle time of approximately 28 seconds per bottle, validated inside Factory I/O.
• Buffer and queue logic kept the line running continuously despite the bottle (30 s) vs. box (27 s) arrival mismatch, with no physical backlog observed in simulation.
• Station sequencing was verified correct across repeated runs — no double-filling or out-of-order behavior.
• Fault-handling logic (jam detection, overfill cutoff, seal-failure hold) was exercised in simulation and returned the line to a safe state each time.

Challenges & Limitations

• This is a Factory I/O simulation, not a physical build — some real components (packaging machinery, a true vision-inspection camera) were represented with placeholder simulation blocks rather than physical hardware.
• The simulation doesn't model real fluid dynamics, so fill-accuracy results are logic-level (timer- and sensor-based), not physically measured.
• Cost estimates in the underlying project report were based on standard industrial benchmarks rather than vendor quotes for this specific build.