A cobot can weld more than one face of a suitable assembly, but the useful measure is required weld coverage in the proposed setup. Count completed seams and remaining handling steps; do not assume that extra arm articulation eliminates every need to turn a part.
In this Article
- Start with the required weld coverage
- Where seven-axis flexibility may help
- Build a coverage matrix before comparing cycles
- Use weld time as well as seam count
- Translate access into a production route
Start with the required weld coverage
Mark every weld on the drawing and identify which ones are currently completed before or after the part is turned. This creates a clear coverage target for the automated welding proposal.
Do not assume that every seam must be robotic for a project to be useful. A system that handles a substantial repeat portion may still be worth evaluating. However, remaining manual welds need to be visible in the comparison rather than discovered after purchase.
Where seven-axis flexibility may help
Kassow describes its welding application around the flexibility of its seven-axis arm. For a multi-sided part, that flexibility is worth evaluating where the arm must move around the assembly to maintain useful torch access.
The result depends on the actual geometry. An additional joint cannot make the torch pass through a solid obstruction. It also does not replace the need to present a joint in a suitable welding position. Treat broader coverage as a result to demonstrate, not an automatic promise.
Build a coverage matrix before comparing cycles
The following is a hypothetical four-seam assembly, not a Spartan performance result. It illustrates the information missing from a demonstration of only one weld.
| Required seam | Proposed arrangement A | Proposed arrangement B |
|---|---|---|
| Front seam | Automated in first presentation | Automated in first presentation |
| Left-side seam | Automated in first presentation | Automated in first presentation |
| Rear seam | Requires another presentation | Included if rear approach is demonstrated |
| Underside seam | Separate operation | Separate operation |
Arrangement B is not automatically the better investment. Its useful difference is the possible inclusion of the rear seam without the same presentation change. That claim needs a demonstrated path and an acceptable welding method. The underside work has not disappeared in either option.
Use weld time as well as seam count
Three short seams out of four may represent much less than three quarters of the welding work. Conversely, one long recurring seam can account for most of the current effort. Record both the required seams and the work associated with them.
Also distinguish automatic weld coverage from complete-product automation. Loading, turning the assembly, or finishing an inaccessible joint can remain manual even when the robot performs most of the arc-on work.
Translate access into a production route
Once coverage is established, write the sequence from loading through the final accepted assembly. Compare presentations, transfers to other stations, and remaining manual work. This reveals whether added articulation improves a meaningful part of the route or only a minor seam.
The Kassow arm's additional flexibility belongs in that coverage review where geometry makes it useful. A successful multi-sided application is a coherent sequence with clear boundaries, not a claim that one setup can always reach every face.
Spartan's published welding demonstration. This illustrates the system; it is not a comparative cycle-time test or a guarantee for another part.
Related Reading
- Tight Fixtures in Cobot Welding: Why Weld Access Matters
- Cobot Welding Fixtures: What to Plan Before Automating a Weldment
Discuss Your Welding Application
Works Cited
Kassow Robots. "Robotic Welding." Kassow Robots, https://www.kassowrobots.com/applications/welding-robotics. Accessed 14 Sept. 2026.