Robotic grinding cuts tray rework by 95 percent at a Virginia fabricator

Heavy metal fabrication; mine battery trays and material handling trays for mining, energy, automotive and airline customers · Sanding and finishing · Vendor published

The job

Lawrence Brothers Inc. of Bluefield, Virginia produces 1,000 metal material handling trays a day, and every one needed a grinding step that FANUC describes as tiresome and injury prone. The job drove high turnover in a region with an already limited workforce, and it generated eight to ten trays a day that had to go back for rework. The company brought in GrayMatter Robotics, a FANUC authorized integrator, which deployed a FANUC M-710iC/70 running AI software that scans each incoming tray and generates the grind path for it, allowing the part type to change every cycle. Displaced grinders were moved into robot operating roles rather than let go.

The shop

FANUC publishes more than 100 employees and 80,000 square feet, with output of 1,000 trays per day. Shift pattern not published. Worth knowing: a separate case study by GENEDGE, Virginia's Manufacturing Extension Partnership, describes about 60 workers at the Bluefield plant, so published headcount varies by source and date.

The equipment

FANUC M-710iC/70 six axis robot, 70 kg payload, 2050 mm reach. GrayMatter Robotics proprietary AI scanning that scans each tray and plans the grinding path, with cycle by cycle part changeover. Abrasive media and grit sequence not published. Force control hardware not published. Dust extraction not published. Fixturing not published.

The published numbers

Production increased by 38 percent, published-by-vendor. Rework decreased by 95 percent, stated as a drop from eight to ten trays per day to eight to ten per month, published-by-vendor. Material cost savings of 2,000 dollars per week on grinding discs, published-by-vendor. Cell reached target rates from its first week, published-by-vendor. Baseline output of 1,000 trays per day, published-by-vendor. Payback period not published. Cell cost not published. Cycle time not published. Headcount change not published; FANUC states employees were upskilled rather than removed.

Where a source did not publish a figure, this entry says so rather than guessing.

What we would check before believing it applies to you

This worked because the part family repeats at high volume, 1,000 trays a day across a few designs, so a scan and plan system absorbs part to part variation without anyone hand programming each SKU; a shop with genuinely one off geometry should demand a runoff on its own worst parts before believing the same flexibility. The 2,000 dollar per week disc figure is the most checkable claim here and it quietly tells you the manual baseline was burning abrasive through operator variable pressure, so measure your own current disc spend per part before booking that saving. What the numbers do not tell you is the money: no cell price, no payback, no cycle time, so the 38 percent throughput figure cannot be converted into a return without asking the vendor directly. Nothing at all is published about dust collection, and on 1,000 steel trays a day that is a serious capital line item plus an ongoing combustible dust housekeeping obligation under NFPA 484 and 652. Finally, note the headcount conflict between the two published accounts; if you benchmark labor savings against this case, confirm the actual crew size on the grinding operation rather than the plant total.

Sources