What is demand like for materials handling robots in Australia?
Last year, materials handling formed more than one third (36%) of the robots being installed. That was in a year when there was a lot of automotive activity, so in a normal year that’s about 50% of the Australian market — and it’s growing.
How has robot technology changed to accommodate more materials handling applications?
There have been changes that have made robots more suitable for handling. Robots have been made easier to implement, and in a sense ‘demystified’. Vision systems are being used more regularly in the form of 3D vision systems, which are reducing the amount of tooling and peripheral equipment in an automated cell. There are also 2D vision systems, which are getting quite a bit of use in jobs ranging from putting coins into blister packs at the Canberra Mint, through to the automotive industry, where three of the four companies in Australia which have launched (or are about to launch) new models, are using vision systems on their press lines. So whether it’s a small coin sized part or a part in high volume applications which is the size of a vehicle body side, vision is being used — last year vision was used in around 10% of robot installations.
What are the other technology developments?
Probably the other element that has created an increase of volume is the use of intelligent software, which again, makes the implementation cost significantly less. So for instance, whereas in a palletising or packing cell in the past, you would need a team of software engineers working out stack patterns, with the standardisation software, you can really throw some of these applications together quite quickly, which means they’re also very cost effective.
What are the cost trends when it comes to using vision for a robotic handling system?
Two classic examples are the Canberra Mint and the automotive clients. In both of these, the alternative solutions were extremely expensive and difficult to maintain. On a press line, the previous solution was a mechanical centring table which had a whole lot of servo drives, mechanical contraptions and so on. The initial purchase cost was more expensive than the vision system itself. The ongoing cost of maintenance and downtime of a mechanical solution was also far higher than the extremely simple and easy to maintain vision solution. Likewise, the Canberra Mint had a situation where without vision, the effective throughput of automation was too low for it to be economically viable. So one of our partner integrators who works with vision systems included an essentially off-the-shelf vision system that allowed a six fold increase in capacity.
Do customers usually know what they want, or do you work it out for them?
Very much the latter and I think that’s the same right across the market. The expertise really lies with the integration companies, whether they are robot suppliers themselves or solely robot integrators. This ‘demystifying’ has really been led by the integrators and robot companies, where the clients don’t need to worry about the technology behind the systems on offer.
How do robots add flexibility to handling solutions?
It very much depends on the market and the application, but for example, food and beverage clients are very much driven by their clients’ marketing demands. A typical trait of those types of clients is a very short product lifecycle and short amount of time to bring a new product onto a market. They’re continually introducing new products to the market, and dropping other products off the market. A manufacturing system to cope with that needs to be extremely flexible and easy to reconfigure. Modern robot software that allows the quick reconfiguration and quick setup of a handling system is therefore constantly in use.
Who are the buyers behind the growth in the robot handling market?
Existing users are continuing on the path of automation. Some of those users are small companies with one or two robots. Others are experienced in robot based automation, where it forms an ingrained part of their processes. The growth is to some extent organic, and by the same token more and more people are seeing that you don’t need rocket science to take care of the equipment. A lot of companies are looking at what they can do to change their manufacturing cost footprint if they’re going to continue operations in Australia. That’s where a lot of the drive is coming form — we’ve got to change the way we do things or we won’t be doing it here for too much longer.
What features set apart the best software packages for materials handling?
Some of the most important features are ease of use and reduced complexity. Otherwise it ends up being the domain of a select few and sometimes those types of systems fall over and the level of optimisation drops off over time. The software has to have good technical support and backup from the provider.
There is not one software solution that fits all. There are suites of software which are being developed to make installation and ongoing use cost-effective. Software standardisation has been used to reduce the cost of implementing robots used in specific applications, such as plastics moulding. The same sort of software is being used in handling operations with machine tools. Different software is being used for palletising. Different, but again standardised software is being used for picking and packing applications.
What’s your most pertinent advice on this topic?
A lot of people still consider robot based automation for handling to be either too high-tech or too expensive. Nowadays it really isn’t. A lot of people still consider this the domain of extremely high volume manufacturers and if they’ve got a small manufacturing facility, they don’t consider if the flexibility can be afforded by them or is relevant to them. The truth is, this is one thing manufacturers in Australia can really use.
BIOGRAPHY
Gekas has been managing the robotics team at ABB for 14 years. Prior to that, he spent two years working at ABB USA. He has a degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Add a comment