Bryan Rodriguez
When a robotic welding system has been running successfully for more than 20 years, replacing it with something similar can seem like the obvious choice.
But production requirements change.
One Capital Machine customer learned that replacing an aging robot with a like-for-like system would not address the demands of their growing operation. A weld cost analysis helped show them what a larger automation investment could actually deliver.
The Challenge: More Production From an Aging System
The original robotic welding system was installed in 2004.
At the time, the application was straightforward: one part, thousands of pieces per year.
As the company grew, so did its production requirements. Instead of replacing the original system, they continued using it and added manual welders to increase output.
Eventually, the customer decided it was time for a replacement.
Their first instinct was understandable: the existing system worked, so why spend more on something different?
That’s where the evaluation needed to go beyond the equipment itself.
The Analysis: Look at the Work, Not Just the Robot
We walked the shop floor, reviewed the application, and performed a weld cost analysis based on the customer’s actual scope of work and production volumes.
The analysis showed that a simple robot replacement would leave opportunities for greater automation on the table.
The customer could benefit from:
- A larger robotic cell
- Part rotation
- More automated part handling
- A system properly sized for production volume
- Higher arc-on time
The larger system required a greater initial investment, but the potential production gains changed the conversation.
The Solution: Automation Sized for the Application
The customer moved forward with the larger robotic welding system.
One of the biggest changes was part handling.
Previously, operators had to manually flip parts multiple times throughout the welding process. The new automation handled those movements, reducing manual intervention and allowing the system to spend more time actually welding.
That higher arc-on time helped increase production capacity without relying on the same level of manual welding.
Based on the scope of work, the application could potentially have required six to eight people, and possibly as many as 10, welding manually. Another option would have been multiple smaller systems.
Instead, the customer invested in a properly sized automated solution.
The ROI: The Customer Beat the Projection
The weld cost analysis projected a return on investment of just under 12 months.
The customer initially challenged the calculation.
After implementing the new system, they found that their actual ROI was about eight months.
That result reinforced the value of evaluating an automation project around the entire application rather than focusing only on the equipment purchase price.
Why Weld Cost Analysis Matters
A robotic welding investment should be based on more than replacing an old machine.
The right analysis considers:
- Production volume
- Part mix and scope of work
- Manual handling requirements
- Arc-on time
- Labor requirements
- Potential throughput
- Expected return on investment
For this customer, that analysis revealed an opportunity that a like-for-like replacement would have missed.
The goal wasn’t simply to install a newer robot. It was to build an automation system that matched where the customer’s production had gone since 2004.
And in this case, the actual return came even faster than the original analysis projected.
A weld cost analysis can help manufacturers understand what the right automation investment looks like before they commit to the equipment.