In every manufacturing process, there is the potential to improve and refine processes in pursuit of greater efficiencies or better product qualities.
Senior technical engineer manager, Henkel China
In every manufacturing process, there is the potential to improve and refine processes in pursuit of greater efficiencies or better product qualities. New technology will emerge that promises to deliver these gains, but early adopters often end up paying the premium for investing before solutions are economically available at scale. In many cases, the high costs of being early to invest mean that first movers fail to profit from moving first. And this is precisely the challenge facing furniture makers when considering the rapid evolution of edge banding.
For an industry heavily reliant on conventional hot melt adhesive edge banding, technology changes pose questions as to whether to adopt new methods and where to invest. On the one hand, technology advances with polyurethane reactive (PUR) hot melt adhesives are making conventional approaches even better and more cost-effective. On the other, the industry has seen alternative methods emerge such as laser edge banding, which uses specialist laser banding machines to melt adhesives on special edging.
The advantage of laser edge banding is its ability to create fine joins, which in some cases can provide a visual impression of higher quality. While manufacturers may present their customers with promises as to the quality of their materials and the longevity and, increasingly, the sustainability of their products, these first impressions can have a major impact on consumers. Does this perceived quality advantage mean that manufacturers should invest in laser edge banding instead? Perhaps not – especially as the costs of being an early adopter can be prohibitive.
Today, the high capital expenditure required to invest in laser banding machinery means that for most manufacturers, there may be a risk in investing in different technology. The advantages of being first to market must be weighed against the high cost and whether any capex spend can be recovered through better sales or premium product pricing. It is also a risk to assume that any investment in expensive plant machinery will not be superseded by superior solutions that make a return on investment less likely. In the highly competitive and volatile market for furniture manufacturing, these are tough decisions to ponder.
These questions of cost and risk explain why more conventional edge banding with hot melt adhesive still dominates the market. However, a major reason is that there has been exciting progress in this area too. Thanks to continuous progress in edge banding processes, equipment precision, adhesives and edging materials, traditional hot melt adhesive edge banding is competitive with laser edge banding in performance terms – and better in many areas.
In terms of producing fine joins and resistance to yellowing over time, the latest PUR hot melts can offer nearly the same level of performance as laser edge banding (Table 1). In other areas, high-quality PUR hot melt adhesives actually surpass laser edge banding with stronger and more durable adhesion, and in many cases offer better longevity too. In particular, PUR hot melts can provide greater resistance to water and – unlike laser edge-banded products – also provide greater stability: the near invisible joins of a laser edge-banded join can develop into a more obvious glue line over time than an edge joined with a PUR adhesive. Hence, the perceived quality of a laser edge-banded product may not actually reflect the reality, or meet customers' expectations for lasting durability. In other words, the best edge banding technique to use is often highly dependent on the specific user requirements and contexts. It is therefore vital for manufacturers to fully understand their market and invest to best align with their customers' needs.
In China, the unit price of laser edge banders ranges from 2.8 to 5.2 million yuan. Furthermore, the cost of laser edging tape varies from 3 to 5 yuan/m. This all translates into higher production costs. Let's consider the relative costs of manufacturing a typical type of door panel using different edge banding techniques.
Laser edge banding: 1/(0.4 x 0.6)x8 ≈ 33 yuan/m²
EVA edge banding: 1/(0.4 x 0.6)x3.171 ≈ 13.213 yuan/m²
PUR edge banding: 1/(0.4 x 0.6)x3.335 ≈ 13.896 yuan/m²
Using current technology, the typical cost of laser edge banding is more than double that of hot melt adhesive – and that's before costs such as high equipment depreciation, equipment maintenance, and more stringent conditions of use are considered. Realistically, we can assume that costs may come down as solutions develop and become more affordable. However, the numbers alone explain why most furniture manufacturers are still holding off on investing in laser edge banding.
When evaluating alternative technologies, leading enterprises currently committed to hot melt adhesive edge banding should stay clear-eyed and focused on their strategic priorities and align their products to market opportunities. It is vital to stay abreast of the continuous innovations, both in new areas like laser edge banding and also those that are advancing the use of hot melt adhesives. Thanks to new approaches to hot melt PUR edge banding, and the introduction of new edging materials, these enterprises will be able to fully realise their strategies and compete alongside the companies that have taken a different path.
senior technical engineer manager, Henkel China