Advanced Welding Processes: Technologies and Process Control

∑ evaluate alternatives;
∑ evaluate implications.
11.10.1 Objectives
Welding automation and robotics 243
The importance of clear objectives cannot be over-emphasized: failure to
define the true reasons for seeking to use automation may result in considerable
waste of effort. In general, the objectives are likely to be based on the
economic, quality, safety or supply flexibility requirements outlined in the
introduction, but, in some cases, the true objective may be more indirect;
comments such as ‘to demonstrate the company’s involvement in high
technology’, or ‘to worry the competition’ or even ‘because the managing
director believes we need a robot’ are not uncommon. These management
aims are equally acceptable objectives, but their implications must be considered
when the success of the installation is being measured.
11.10.2 The application
The suitability of the application can be assessed in terms of the product lifecycle,
the accuracy of joint preparation, the possibility of redesign [293] and
the possibility of using a process that may be automated.
11.10.3 The options
The options available have been detailed above, and, in any application,
some may be readily eliminated as inappropriate at an early stage, but those
with any possibility of success should be evaluated more carefully. This
evaluation may involve process feasibility trials and examination of similar
production systems, but it will also involve a financial justification.
11.10.4 Financial justification
The type of economic analysis used will often be a matter of company policy
and may involve an evaluation of return on investment or discounted cash
flow, but, in practice, most assessments are based on the simple payback
period. 7 In the case of structural steel fabrication, the labour cost often
accounts for the major part of the total cost of welding. The primary cost
savings are therefore associated with improvements in the operating factor
7 In Japan, a recent survey showed that 66.8% of companies used payback periods of three
to five years as justification criteria, whilst 10% used net present value techniques and
only 6.5% used internal rate of return methods.