Retrofitting robotics into an existing warehouse can unlock improvements in productivity, safety and operational performance. However, existing services and operations need to accommodate equipment the building may never have been designed to support.
Investing time in enabling works is key. Before designing new infrastructure, it’s essential to understand what you already have and what the automation actually needs. Without this investigative stage, additional cost is likely to undermine the return that made automation attractive in the first place.
This article details lessons learned from integrating multiple types of robotic automation into existing distribution facilities, including robotic handling, frame loading and automated bagging systems.
How to Reduce CAPEX
Carry out investigative work
The most common pitfall in an automation retrofit is the assumption that existing infrastructure needs replacing.
On a recent warehouse automation retrofit, our client expected to have to install a new fibre network. Rather than proceeding directly to replacement, we worked with the existing infrastructure and contractors to test spare fibre and establish whether it could be reused.
Our investigation demonstrated that around 150 existing fibre cores could be reused. This research became a small investment that avoided a new, and costly, installation.
On another part of the automation retrofit, documented maximum demand suggested there wasn’t sufficient electrical capacity for the proposed equipment in local distribution boards. Site investigation with the electrical contractor to review electrical metering data and load monitoring confirmed that capacity was available, avoiding an unnecessary upgrade to the upstream electrical supply systems.
These examples highlight that drawings and as-built information are the starting point but rarely the final answer. Time onsite is critical to confirm what’s actually installed, its condition and the capacity that’s available.
Early contractor involvement can make this investigation more valuable. Working with incumbent contractors allows existing infrastructure to be tested and surveyed before design decisions are locked in and equipment procured, giving asset owners and operators confidence to reuse assets where possible.
Be mindful of what you don’t need to investigate
On a recent project for a large supermarket, our client was determining the feasibility of retrofitting robotics to 3 existing stores. Our structural team was able to quickly rule out 2 of those sites due to the slab loading plan being insufficient for the proposed robotics. This saved on the cost of due diligence and investigations when reviewing their location options.
Right-size infrastructure
Automation suppliers recommend the infrastructure needed to support their systems. However, requirements should still be tested against the building and the way the system will actually operate.
We assessed the compressed-air requirement on a recent robotic installation. Initial supplier information indicated that the existing compressed-air plant would need to increase to 9 times its existing capacity. In an operational warehouse, accommodating an increase of that scale would have been prohibitively expensive.
On further analysis, the requirement didn’t appear consistent with the equipment. Our investigation identified a unit-conversion error in the supplier information. Once corrected, the required increase was closer to 1.5 times the existing plant capacity.
This difference saved on equipment cost, space, services and construction work, contributing to the feasibility of the project.
Protect the program
Bringing in specialist engineering teams early helps inform design, procurement and feasibility.
Once automation design and procurement progress, late building changes become harder to accommodate. Building permits, fire safety, power, communications and other enabling works therefore should be resolved during feasibility assessment when asset owners are trying to determine what their facility can accommodate and whether it will achieve the required return on investment.
Plan for business continuity
Any warehouse upgrade becomes challenging when a business needs to continue running.
For one electrical connection on a robotics retrofit, the original approach involved 3 power shutdowns proposed by the electrical sub-contractor. The switchboard also supplied an onsite office supporting the 24/7 operation, creating a need for temporary accommodation and amenities during the works.
Working with the electrical subcontractor, we investigated alternative connection arrangements and pre-works to reduce the requirement to one shutdown. We also identified a compliant way to supply the new equipment from another board, avoiding the office shutdown altogether.
Part of our role involved communicating this evidence-based recommendation to our client. This included demonstrating how reuse of existing infrastructure not only saved money but also reduced risk.
Integrate Fire safety early
On a recent installation, conveyors had been designed overseas without a fire sprinkler requirement. This meant our fire protection team needed to bridge the gap between the original equipment design and the local region requirements. Identifying these differences early meant we could reduce the risk of late redesign once equipment was already locked in.
We also needed to work with new conveyors that changed travel distances within the warehouse. Shortening or relocating them wasn’t practical because their position was integral to the performance of the wider automation system. Instead, our design started with understanding how people would actually use the space.
We worked with the certifier and BCA consultant to define areas around the equipment that didn’t need regular access and could be maintenance access only, supporting this with appropriate documentation. This allowed the automation layout to be retained while meeting fire safety compliance.
Interrogate to understand
One of the challenges of introducing new automation technology is the gap between those who understand the building and those who understand the equipment. Operators should have a solid understanding of the existing facility, equipment, systems and lifecycle. Engineers need to understand how the automation operates, what it genuinely requires and how those requirements translate into the local regulatory, technical and operational environment.
On our warehouse projects, this has meant learning unfamiliar robotic systems through supplier information, pilot installations and direct engagement with automation specialists, many of whom are overseas. This understanding allows us to interrogate technical requirements before they become cost prohibitive.
This also means understanding the standards governing the existing facility and automation. Overseas equipment may have been designed around different assumptions so local fire, regulatory and technical requirements need to be identified early and coordinated into the equipment design. On this project, the warehouse also operated under FM Global fire protection standards, requiring specialist understanding of the framework already governing the facility.
Engaging a multidisciplinary engineering team with experience in robotics during the feasibility stage helps identify major issues such as power capacity, structural adequacy and available space for new mechanical plant and risers. When engaged early, this specialist team can save asset owners and developers significant investment in time, budget and risk.
