Automatic Dispensing System Selection: Adhesive and Sealant RFP

“We apply adhesives and sealants with handheld air dispensers, but we cannot reduce the variation in applied volume, the leak defects, or the material waste. We want to automate, but which method should we choose, what should we write in the purchase specification, and what should we test at acceptance?” We often hear this from production engineering and quality assurance staff at Japanese-owned automotive parts, electrical component, home appliance, and EV battery factories in Thailand. Here is the short answer: automatic dispensing system selection is not decided by whether you add a robot. It is decided by 3 things: (1) the dispensing method, which is determined by the material (viscosity, presence of filler, 1K or 2K, pot life, moisture cure); (2) the scope of inspection, meaning what you measure after dispensing and to what accuracy; and (3) the management of material supply, temperature, and cleaning. A robot or Cartesian axes are only “a means of carrying the nozzle to the place where material is applied.” The main causes of volume variation lie in the dispensing method and material management.

All amounts, counts, headcounts, reduction rates, and payback years in this article are original estimates and assumptions (placeholder values) created for this article, based on the model factory described later. They are neither industry averages nor survey results. Please read them as a “calculation template” and replace them with your own measured figures.

Why Adhesive and Sealant Dispensing Automation Is Increasing in Thai Factories

In Thailand, investment continues in industries with many bonding, sealing, and potting processes.

On July 3, 2026, the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) announced that approvals of investment promotion for EV-related projects had reached 198 projects worth more than THB 137 billion as of May 2026. Of these, batteries and energy storage accounted for 57 projects worth THB 33.5 billion. Assembling battery packs and modules involves many processes that “place a fixed amount of liquid material in a fixed location,” such as fixing cells, filling material to conduct heat away, and waterproof sealing of enclosures.

The same is true of electrical and electronics and automotive parts. In first-half 2026 investment applications announced by the BOI on July 23, 2026, electrical and electronics accounted for 179 projects worth THB 120.23 billion, and automotive and parts for THB 25.662 billion. For ECU housings, sensors, motors, lighting components, and similar parts, sealant dispensing for waterproofing and dustproofing, and adhesive bonding to fix components, are indispensable.

On the labor cost side, Thailand’s minimum wage was revised by Wage Committee Notification No. 14 (effective July 1, 2025), bringing Bangkok and the main provinces of the EEC (Eastern Economic Corridor) into the THB 400 per day band. As of October 2026, commentary states that no revision for 2026 has been announced, but it is becoming harder to plan on continuing to add manual dispensing processes. However, as the estimate later in this article shows, the benefits of dispensing automation come more from quality and materials than from labor cost.

“Monitoring” of materials and dispensing is also advancing. On September 29, 2026, 3M introduced the “3M Adhesive Mix Monitor,” which determines in real time during dispensing whether a 2K adhesive is mixed at the correct ratio at the outlet of the static mixer. RAMPF has also announced that it will exhibit sealing, potting, and bonding materials for batteries, along with automated mixing and dispensing systems, at The Battery Show North America in Detroit, USA, on October 12-15, 2026. Dispensing is shifting from a process where “it is enough to get material on the part” to one where “correct application is assured within the process.”

What Is an Automatic Dispensing System: The 4 Elements of Dispensing, Axes, Inspection, and Material Supply

It is easier to avoid selection mistakes if you think of an automatic dispensing system not as a single machine but as a combination of 4 elements with different roles.

A common confusion is the difference between a “dispenser” and a “dispensing robot.” The dispenser usually refers to the part that does the dispensing, and the dispensing robot to the axis part that holds and moves the dispenser; the combination of the two is an automatic dispensing system. When you request quotations, discussion tends to focus on the robot model and payload, but whether the applied volume is stable is decided almost entirely by the dispensing method and material supply. We cover how to choose a robot itself in “Types of Industrial Robots and How to Choose,” so please refer to it for axis selection.

Another important point is who integrates the 4 elements. The dispenser maker, robot maker, vision maker, and material maker are often separate companies, and the system integrator (SIer) takes overall responsibility. You need to decide before ordering who will fix a problem in which element and who will attend parameter setting. For choosing an SIer, see also “Selecting a Robot System Integrator in Thailand.”

Dispenser Comparison: Air, Auger, Positive Displacement, Jet, and 2K Meter-Mix

Dispensing methods can be broadly divided into 5 types. Understanding the principle and weaknesses of each makes it easier to evaluate the content of vendor proposals.

Weaknesses of the Air (Time-Pressure) Method

The air method has a simple structure, is inexpensive, and has long been widely used in both manual and automated equipment. On the other hand, it is generally explained to have the following 2 weaknesses. One is that as the material in the syringe decreases, the air-side volume increases, so the dispensed volume decreases even at the same pressure and time settings. The other is that when the material’s viscosity changes, the pressure must be readjusted. On sites with large temperature swings, the latter is particularly significant.

When using the air method for automation, also check air quality. Pressure fluctuations and moisture in the supplied compressed air affect dispensing stability. We discuss compressed air management in detail in “Compressed Air Dew Point Monitoring.”

Auger (Screw)

The auger method feeds material out by rotating a screw. Nordson EFD describes its auger valve as combining the screw-feed principle with precise control of time and dispensing to apply high-viscosity, filled (particle-containing) fluids accurately and repeatably. While it is suited to precisely drawing tiny dots and thin lines, screw wear becomes a maintenance issue with heavily filled materials.

Positive Displacement (Progressive Cavity, Endless Piston)

Because the positive displacement method pushes material out by the volume of a sealed space, it is in principle less affected by fill level and viscosity. For the progressive cavity method, a representative example, ViscoTec states that its pumps based on its “endless piston” principle can convey materials of up to 7,000,000 mPas, have extremely low shear, and allow continuous production without valves or refilling steps (all manufacturer’s stated values). It suits bead application of high-viscosity sealants and filled materials that you want to protect from shear damage. Always check, at the selection stage, the replacement interval and local stock of the stator (the rubber outer sleeve), which is a consumable part.

Jet (Non-Contact)

The jet method applies material by shooting it without the nozzle touching the workpiece. In announcing its jet valve, Nordson EFD explained that because it is non-contact, the constraint of Z-axis (vertical) movement is removed. Because no vertical nozzle movement is needed, dots can be placed at high speed, and material can be applied to uneven surfaces and to tight spaces the nozzle cannot easily approach. Some models heat the material to lower its viscosity before dispensing. However, which materials can be jetted depends on the combination of material and model, so testing with the actual material is essential.

2K Metering, Mixing, and Dispensing

When using 2K materials (resin and hardener), you use equipment that meters each component and dispenses while mixing them with a static or dynamic mixer. On its comparison page for 2K meter-mix-dispense machines, Graco lists the minimum shot size and mix ratio range for each model. For example, according to the company, the PR70 handles shot sizes of 2-70cc at mix ratios of 1:1 to 24:1, and the PD44 handles 0.005-5.0cc at 1:1 to 25:1. The PR70 product page also states a mix ratio accuracy of ±1% (all manufacturer’s stated values). In practice, the order of selection is to first confirm “the shot size needed per cycle” and “the mix ratio of the material,” then narrow down the range of models that fit.

For small volumes, it is also possible to dispense using 2K dual cartridges and a static mixer, but for continuous dispensing in mass production, or where the mix ratio must be guaranteed, dedicated meter-mix-dispense equipment becomes a candidate.

Adhesive Dispensing Automation Starts with the Material: Viscosity, Filler, 2K, and Pot Life

It is the properties of the material that narrow down the candidate methods. Before ordering, gather the material maker’s technical data sheet and safety data sheet (SDS) and list the following items.

Pot Life and Temperature

Pot life deserves particular attention with 2K materials. Adhesive maker DELO defines pot life as “the processing time during which a mixed 2K adhesive can still be applied and processed,” and explains that it ends as crosslinking progresses and viscosity rises. The higher the temperature, the shorter the pot life. DELO also notes that with dual cartridges, pot life is fixed from the moment mixing begins, whereas automatic mixing systems allow continuous processing.

In practice, you need to decide when to discard (purge) and restart if mixed material remains in the nozzle after a line stop or changeover. In environments like Thai factories, where room temperatures tend to be high, it is important to check at the outset the difference between the conditions stated by the material maker and the actual shop floor temperature.

Air Bubbles and Degassing

Air bubbles introduced during mixing or supply cause bead breaks and insufficient volume. It is generally reported that measures such as vacuum, agitation, and temperature control of reservoir tanks are used to suppress bubbles. Because the degree of degassing needed depends on the material and application, a realistic approach is to include “degassing and temperature control of the supply system” as an item for consideration in the RFP and ask both the material maker and the dispenser maker for their views.

Thermal Interface Materials (Gap Fillers) for EV Batteries

In the EV battery field, dispensing of thermal interface materials that conduct heat from cells and modules to the cooling section is increasing. Fraunhofer IFAM, a German research institute, classifies thermal interface materials for EV batteries into 2 types: soft “gap fillers” that allow disassembly and repair, and hard “thermally conductive adhesives” that bond permanently, and explains that both contain a high proportion of inorganic fillers.

With highly filled materials, wear of pumps and screws and the choice of supply method become issues. Materials are also evolving: for a silicone-based gap filler introduced in July 2026, Wevo-Chemie states that it can be processed with standard dosing equipment such as piston pumps and eccentric screw pumps, without the extruders or drum extrusion stations generally required for highly filled products. Parker Chomerics also offers a 2K-curing gap filler that it says can be mixed 1:1 and dispensed manually or automatically from a static mixer, without prior mixing, metering, or degassing. These are all manufacturers’ descriptions, and whether they can be used with your own equipment and process needs to be confirmed by testing with the actual material.

How Much to Require from Vision-Based Bead Inspection: 2D vs 3D, Mix Condition, and Safety Classes

Alongside the method, inspection is a pillar of selection. What you measure after dispensing, and to what accuracy, determines the scope over which quality can be assured.

The Difference Between 2D and 3D Inspection

Atlas Copco describes its inline inspection products for dispensed beads as follows: 2D in-process inspection detects defects in bead width, position, and continuity (breaks), while 3D in-process inspection additionally measures height and applied volume.

The key point here is that 2D inspection cannot see height or volume. Even if width and position look correct from above, a low, thin bead may fail to do its job as a seal. For areas where the bead cross-section directly affects performance, such as waterproof seals and structural bonds, 3D inspection is worth considering. Overseas, cases have also been reported of capturing point clouds of structural adhesive beads on car body parts with 3D cameras and analyzing them with AI.

How to connect inspection results to rejection and recording on the production line is an issue shared with visual inspection in general. We explain the design from judgment to rejection in detail in “AI Visual Inspection on High-Speed Lines (Inspection and PLC Rejection).”

Confirming 2K Mix Condition Within the Process

With 2K materials, even if the bead shape looks good, a deviation in mix ratio causes incomplete cure or insufficient strength. The 3M Adhesive Mix Monitor mentioned earlier is described as a system that attaches a disposable sensor at the static mixer outlet, judges the mix condition during dispensing, shows operators an immediate green or red indication, and leaves time-stamped data for engineers. 3M has stated its view of the problem: if a mixing defect is discovered after production or in use, it can lead to large scrap losses. In processes using 2K materials, how to assure “mixing” within the process, in addition to “dispense volume” and “shape,” should probably be included as a selection issue.

Dividing Roles with Downstream Leak Testing

With sealants, defects missed by bead inspection are often found by leak testing in a downstream process. However, by the time a leak test finds them, assembly and curing of the part are already complete, so the loss from rework or scrap is large. If you design a division of roles in which bead inspection rejects “early and cheaply” and leak testing provides “final assurance,” it becomes easier to decide the specifications of both pieces of equipment. We cover how to choose leak testing equipment in “Selecting Industrial Leak Test Equipment.”

DIN 2304-1 and the Concept of “Safety Classes”

For structural (load-bearing) bonding, the German standard DIN 2304-1 sets quality requirements for the entire adhesive bonding process chain, from development through production to repair. The standard requires each joint within its scope to be classified into a safety class, and it is reported to establish 4 safety classes.

Situations in which a Thai factory is directly required to be certified to this standard may be limited. Even so, the idea of “classifying each joint by the severity of the consequences if it fails, and adjusting the rigor of inspection and recording accordingly” is useful as a yardstick for deciding how much inspection to require. It provides the basis for a decision not to add 3D inspection to every dispensing application, but to be strict only for joints with high impact.

Material Supply, Temperature Control, and Cleaning: The Behind-the-Scenes Factors That Decide Daily Stability

Even once the method and inspection are decided, if material does not reach the dispensing head in a stable condition, the applied volume will vary. Many post-installation problems occur in these “behind-the-scenes” areas.

Cartridge or Pail

The material’s packaging changes the configuration of the supply equipment. Cartridges and syringes are easy to change but need frequent replacement, and each change tends to introduce air bubbles or shifts in dispense volume. Pump supply from pails or drums reduces replacement frequency but incurs pump and piping costs, and you need to consider temperature control of the material in the piping and how to handle material during long stoppages. Estimate the replacement frequency and replacement time from the production volume and material consumption, and decide which suits you.

Material Temperature Control

Because viscosity changes with temperature, if the material temperature moves, the dispense volume moves too. In areas without air conditioning, material temperature changes between morning and midday, and between the dry and rainy seasons. How much temperature control to put on material tanks, piping, and nozzles depends on how the material’s viscosity varies with temperature and on the required dispense volume tolerance. At a minimum, “measuring and recording material temperature” is an item worth including with any method.

Purging, Nozzle Management, and Cleaning

Moisture-curing sealants and 2K materials cure at the nozzle tip and cause clogging. Define as procedures how to protect the nozzle while idle, when to purge, and how to clean piping and mixers when a line stop is prolonged. Because equipment makers and material makers sometimes disagree on these procedures, confirming them with both at the parameter setting stage and documenting them helps prevent later trouble.

Cleaning and changeover time also affect the takt time calculation. At the quotation stage, confirm how many minutes a day purging and cleaning take, and how many units of production are lost during that time.

Cost and ROI: An Estimate Using a Model Factory

All figures from here on are placeholder values set independently for this article. They are neither industry averages nor survey results.

Common Assumptions (Model Factory D)

Under these assumptions, current labor cost is 1,920,000 THB per year (8 people x 240,000 THB), losses from dispensing-related defects are 1,440,000 THB per year (9,600 units x 150 THB), and losses from escape claims are 1,000,000 THB per year (2 claims x 500,000 THB).

Configuration A: Air (Time-Pressure) + Desktop Robot + Post-Dispense 2D Vision

The initial investment is 1,800,000 THB for the desktop robot, dispenser, and fixtures; 600,000 THB for 2D vision; 900,000 THB for safety fencing, control panel, and SI; 300,000 THB for material testing and parameter setting; and 200,000 THB for FAT/SAT, for a total of 3,800,000 THB. Annual operating cost is assumed to be 250,000 THB per year for maintenance and consumables (nozzles, syringes, etc.).

The benefits (assumed values) are as follows.

• Staffing: dispensing operators from 6 to 2 (1 per shift for loading and monitoring), visual inspectors from 2 to 1, a reduction of 5 people x 240,000 THB = 1,200,000 THB
• Material: from 2.6 g per unit to 2.3 g per unit (with the air method, a margin for viscosity changes is kept, so volume cannot be brought all the way down to the target), 0.3 g x 1,200,000 units x 1.2 THB = 432,000 THB
• Defects: from 0.8% to 0.4% (9,600 units to 4,800 units), the reduced 4,800 units x 150 THB = 720,000 THB
• Escape claims: from 2 to 1 per year, 500,000 THB

Total benefits are 2,852,000 THB per year. Annual net benefit after operating cost is 2,852,000 – 250,000 = 2,602,000 THB per year, and the simple payback period is 3,800,000 / 2,602,000 = about 1.5 years.

Configuration B: Positive Displacement (Progressive Cavity) + Robot + 3D Bead Inspection + Material Temperature Control and Pail Supply

The initial investment is 2,600,000 THB for the positive displacement dispenser, robot, and fixtures; 1,400,000 THB for 3D bead inspection; 1,000,000 THB for safety fencing, control panel, and SI; 500,000 THB for material temperature control and pail pump supply; 400,000 THB for material testing and parameter setting; and 300,000 THB for FAT/SAT, for a total of 6,200,000 THB. Annual operating cost is assumed to be 400,000 THB per year.

The benefits (assumed values) are calculated as replacing those of Configuration A (they are not added on top of Configuration A’s benefits). The staffing reduction of 6 people also includes Configuration A’s 5.

• Staffing: dispensing operators from 6 to 2, visual inspectors from 2 to 0, a reduction of 6 people x 240,000 THB = 1,440,000 THB
• Material: from 2.6 g per unit to 2.1 g per unit, 0.5 g x 1,200,000 units x 1.2 THB = 720,000 THB
• Defects: from 0.8% to 0.15% (9,600 units to 1,800 units), the reduced 7,800 units x 150 THB = 1,170,000 THB
• Escape claims: from 2 to 0 per year, 1,000,000 THB

Total benefits are 4,330,000 THB per year, annual net benefit is 4,330,000 – 400,000 = 3,930,000 THB per year, and the simple payback period is 6,200,000 / 3,930,000 = about 1.6 years.

Takeaway 1: Payback Is Nearly the Same, but B Delivers More over 5 Years. The Difference Comes from Quality, Not People

Over 5 years, Configuration A yields 2,602,000 x 5 – 3,800,000 = 9,210,000 THB and Configuration B yields 3,930,000 x 5 – 6,200,000 = 13,450,000 THB, so Configuration B is 4,240,000 THB higher.

Looking only at Configuration B’s increment, the additional initial investment is 6,200,000 – 3,800,000 = 2,400,000 THB, the additional annual net benefit is 3,930,000 – 2,602,000 = 1,328,000 THB per year, and payback of the increment is about 1.8 years.

Look at the breakdown of this incremental net benefit of 1,328,000 THB.

Of the difference from A to B, only 240,000 THB comes from staffing reduction. Most of the difference is the quality difference created by the method and inspection: material, defects, and escape claims. If you compare Configurations A and B only on “how many people can be cut,” B looks like it costs 2,400,000 THB more in initial investment yet cuts only 1 more person, and the reason to invest in the method and inspection disappears from view. What you should compare in automatic dispensing system selection is not the number of people saved, but how much the variation in applied volume, defects, and escapes are reduced.

Takeaway 2: How the Conclusion Changes If the Escape Claim Assumption Is Removed

The most uncertain item in this estimate is the benefit from avoiding escape claims. Escapes to customers are few in number, and the loss per case varies greatly by incident. So let us recalculate with the escape claim avoidance benefit set to zero.

Even without the escape claim benefit, both configurations pay back. However, payback of B’s increment lengthens from about 1.8 years to about 2.9 years. In other words, part of the rationale for choosing Configuration B is the quality policy itself: “how much do you want to stop escapes?”

What this shows is that the first job before ordering is to measure (aggregate) the dispensing-related defect rate, the number of escapes, and the loss per case over the past 1 to 2 years. If you compare quotations without these figures, you tend either to drift toward the cheaper Configuration A or to choose the more expensive Configuration B without justification. In the 90-day plan below, this is placed in the first 30 days.

12 Items to Include in the RFP

These are the items you should at least include in the RFP (request for proposal) when requesting quotations from dispenser makers and SIers.

Items particularly easy to overlook are 5, “reasons for proposal,” and 9, traceability. When you let vendors propose the method, asking them to explain “why that method” together with test results on your own material makes it easier to compare proposals. Traceability is the mechanism for narrowing down the scope of impact when an escape occurs. Include it in the specification from the start so that, for each unit, you can record when it was dispensed, with which material lot, under which conditions, and what the inspection result was. We explain how to design per-unit recording of production equipment data in “Production Equipment Traceability.”

What to Confirm at FAT/SAT

At FAT (factory acceptance test) and SAT (site acceptance test after installation), confirm not that “it dispensed neatly” but that “it dispenses stably under mass production conditions.”

The most important of these is the last one, cross-checking with leak testing. If units that passed bead inspection fail the leak test, something has been missed in the inspection criteria or the method. If you make it possible from the SAT stage to match dispensing data and leak test results by the same unit serial number, improvement after the start of mass production will also be faster.

Also, because FAT is held at the equipment maker’s factory, the room temperature may differ from that of the Thai site. The reliable approach is to run the varied material temperature test once at FAT and recheck it at SAT under the site’s temperature conditions.

Issues Specific to Thailand and ASEAN

Temperature, Humidity, and Material Viscosity

In areas without air conditioning, material temperature changes between day and night and across seasons, and viscosity moves. When viscosity moves, dispense volume changes, especially with the air method. With moisture-curing materials, high humidity also makes curing and clogging at the nozzle tip more likely. We recommend writing material temperature control, nozzle management while idle, and purge procedures concretely into the RFP.

Local Procurement and Approval of Materials

Check whether the customer-approved material (the material specified in Japan) is available in Thailand in the same packaging (cartridge or pail). If the packaging differs, the configuration of the supply equipment also changes. Also check the procurement lead time and storage conditions such as refrigeration. Changing a material often requires customer re-approval, which takes time, so it is realistic to proceed with this in parallel with equipment selection.

Chemical Regulations and SDS

According to a summary on a chemical regulation information website, Thailand’s Hazardous Substance Act classifies hazardous substances into Types 1 to 4, with treatment such as notification, registration, and permits differing by type. The Department of Industrial Works (DIW) of the Ministry of Industry is said to have jurisdiction over industrial chemicals, and GHS-based classification and labeling has been implemented, first for single substances and then for mixtures. Which type the individual components of an adhesive or sealant fall under must be confirmed using each product’s SDS and the official lists. This article cannot determine the classification of individual materials, so please build confirmation of the SDS (including the Thai version) and hazardous substance classification into your procurement procedure, and confirm specific handling individually with the competent authorities or experts.

Equipment Procurement and Changes in BOI Projects

For projects receiving BOI investment promotion, conditions may be attached to the procurement or modification of equipment. How the addition of equipment or modification of existing equipment accompanying the introduction of an automatic dispensing system relates to the conditions of the incentives differs from project to project. This article cannot make that determination, so please confirm individually with the competent BOI office or experts.

Maintenance Support and Attendance at Startup

If replacement of consumables such as positive displacement pump stators, 2K mixers, and nozzles is delayed, production stops. Check whether there is stock within Thailand and whether the maker or its distributor has local service. Also decide before ordering who will attend parameter setting at startup (which of the dispenser maker, material maker, or SIer is responsible). Parameter setting requires knowledge of both the material and the equipment, so if the scope of attendance is vague, it can delay the start of mass production.

When handling materials containing flammable solvents, as in painting, explosion-proof requirements may be added. For the approach in that case, see “Introducing Explosion-Proof Cobots for Painting.”

Examples of Options on the Market

For reference, here are options we were able to confirm in the research for this article. For dispensing, there are Nordson EFD (auger valves, jet valves), ViscoTec (progressive cavity positive displacement pumps), Graco (2K meter-mix-dispense machines), and GPD Global (dispensers for semiconductors and PCBs). For inspection, Atlas Copco (SCA and Scheugenpflug dispensing equipment, and 2D/3D bead inspection), Coherix, which offers 3D bead inspection, and Basler, which provides 3D cameras, have been reported. For materials and process monitoring, there are 3M (2K mix condition monitor), DELO (adhesives), RAMPF (sealing and potting materials for batteries and automated mixing and dispensing systems), and Wevo-Chemie and Parker Chomerics (gap fillers). These are all neutral examples, not recommendations or rankings.

90-Day Plan

Days 0-30: Measure dispensing-related defects, escapes, and material usage, and organize material information

Aggregate the dispensing-related defect rate, the number of escapes to customers, and the loss per case for the past 1 to 2 years. Also measure actual material usage to understand how far the average applied volume per unit deviates from the target. In parallel, collect the technical data sheets and SDS for the materials in use, and list viscosity, filler, 1K/2K, pot life, cure mechanism, and packaging. At this stage, replace the model estimate’s assumptions with your own figures and form a view of whether the direction of Configuration A or Configuration B fits.

Days 31-60: Method comparison tests with actual material and draft inspection criteria

Using a dispenser maker’s test lab, run comparison tests of candidate methods with your own actual material and workpiece (or part of it). Confirm dispense volume repeatability, changes when material temperature is varied, and restart after idle. At the same time, organize the importance of each joint, separate areas where 2D is sufficient from those that need 3D, and draft inspection judgment criteria.

Days 61-90: RFP, FAT/SAT criteria, and order decision

Based on the test results, finalize the 12 RFP items and the FAT/SAT test items and acceptance criteria, and obtain quotations from multiple vendors under the same conditions. Compare the quotations with your own version of the estimate and decide whether to order, and in which configuration.

The 5 deliverables you want in hand at the end of the 90 days are: (1) aggregate tables of dispensing-related defects, escapes, and material usage, and your own investment estimate reflecting them; (2) a list of material information and SDS; (3) results of method comparison tests with actual material; (4) draft inspection criteria for each joint; and (5) the RFP and FAT/SAT criteria. Conversely, if the aggregation in (1) shows almost no dispensing-related defects or escapes, it is also reasonable to narrow the scope of investment, for example by limiting inspection to 2D, or by making reduction of material usage the main objective.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an automatic dispensing system? What is the difference between a dispenser and a dispensing robot?

An automatic dispensing system is a combination of 4 elements: the dispensing head that pushes out material (dispenser), the axes that move the nozzle (robot or Cartesian axes), inspection that confirms material was applied, and the supply system that delivers material. The dispenser usually refers to the part that dispenses, and the dispensing robot to the part that holds and moves it. Stability of the applied volume is determined mainly by the dispenser method and material supply.

Should we choose the air (time-pressure) method or positive displacement?

It depends on the material and tolerance. The air method is inexpensive and easy to handle, but it is generally explained that its dispense volume tends to drift with syringe fill level and viscosity changes. For materials whose viscosity changes greatly with temperature, processes with tight volume tolerances, and high-viscosity sealants, positive displacement becomes a candidate. Ultimately, we recommend testing both with your own actual material before deciding.

What should we watch out for when automatically mixing and dispensing 2K adhesives?

There are 3 main points. First, choose meter-mix-dispense equipment that fits the required shot size and mix ratio. Second, given that pot life shortens with temperature, define purge procedures for line stops. Third, decide how to confirm within the process that the mix ratio is correct. Devices that monitor mix condition during dispensing have also appeared.

Is 2D vision sufficient for bead inspection? When is 3D needed?

2D inspection shows width, position, and breaks, but cannot see height or volume. For areas where the bead cross-section directly affects performance, such as waterproof seals and structural bonds, consider 3D inspection. A realistic approach in terms of cost-effectiveness is to rank each joint by the severity of the consequences if it fails, and to use 3D only for the important areas.

What does an automatic dispensing system cost, and what is the payback period?

In this article’s model estimate (all placeholder values), Configuration A, air + desktop robot + 2D vision, had an initial investment of 3,800,000 THB and a simple payback of about 1.5 years, and Configuration B, positive displacement + robot + 3D inspection + temperature control and pail supply, had 6,200,000 THB and about 1.6 years. However, if the escape claim avoidance benefit is set to zero, payback lengthens to about 1.8 years for Configuration A and about 2.1 years for Configuration B. Recalculating with your own defect rate, number of escapes, and material usage is a prerequisite. For the treatment of equipment investment and taxation in BOI projects, please confirm individually with the competent authorities or experts.

What should we be careful about when dispensing gap fillers for EV batteries?

Thermal interface materials such as gap fillers contain a lot of inorganic filler, so wear of pumps and screws and the choice of supply method become issues. Materials that claim to be processable with standard dosing equipment and 2K materials that claim no prior degassing is needed have appeared, but these are all manufacturers’ descriptions and need to be confirmed by testing with the actual material. Please also build confirmation of the material’s SDS and hazardous substance classification into your procurement procedure while checking with the competent authorities or experts.

Summary

• Automatic dispensing system selection is not decided by whether you add a robot. It is decided by 3 things: the dispensing method determined by the material, the scope of bead inspection, and the management of material supply, temperature, and cleaning.
• The air method is inexpensive but vulnerable to changes in fill level and viscosity. Candidates are the auger method for high-viscosity and filled materials, positive displacement for sealants where volume repeatability matters, jet for uneven surfaces and tight spaces, and meter-mix-dispense equipment for 2K materials.
• 2D inspection cannot see height or volume. Classify joints by importance, and consider 3D inspection and mix condition monitoring for important areas.
• In the model estimate (placeholder values), Configurations A and B have nearly the same payback period, but over 5 years B is 4,240,000 THB higher. Most of the difference came not from staffing but from quality differences: material, defects, and escapes.
• If the escape claim assumption is removed, payback of B’s increment lengthens to about 2.9 years. The first job before ordering is to measure the dispensing-related defect rate, number of escapes, and loss amounts.

TOMAS TECH supports Japanese-owned factories in Thailand from the preparation stage, such as aggregating dispensing-related defects and escapes, organizing material information, and arranging method comparison tests at makers’ test labs, through to RFP drafting and attendance at FAT/SAT. Even if you are at the stage of “first wanting to understand how large our current defects and material losses are,” please feel free to contact us through our contact form.

References

• Dover, “Selecting the Right Dispensing Equipment for Your Applications” (September 21, 2018): https://dovercorporation.com/news/blog/post/2018/09/21/selecting-the-right-dispensing-equipment-for-your-applications
• Automation Magazine, “Nordson EFD auger valve system” (September 19, 2013): https://www.automationmagazine.co.uk/nordson-efd-auger-valve-system/
• ViscoTec, “Technology”: https://www.viscotec.de/en/technology/
• Automation Magazine, “Nordson EFD introduces the latest innovations in jet dispensing technology” (September 17, 2015): https://www.automationmagazine.co.uk/nordson-efd-introduces-the-latest-innovations-in-jet-dispensing-technology/
• Graco, “Comparing 2K MMD Systems”: https://www.graco.com/gb/en/in-plant-manufacturing/solutions/articles/comparing-2k-mmd-systems.html
• Graco, “PR70” product page: https://www.graco.com/lt/lt/products/sealants-and-adhesives/pr70.html
• DELO, “Pot life” glossary entry: https://www.delo-adhesives.com/academy/glossary/pot-life/
• DELO instructions for use (DUOPOX): https://www.delo-adhesives.com/fileadmin/files/instructions/us/delo_duopox_warm__gebr-en-us_-1.pdf
• Atlas Copco, “Vision inspection”: https://atlascopco.com/vi-vn/itba/industry-solutions/joining-solutions/vision-inspection
• Basler, “Mindtrace beads” use case: https://www.baslerweb.com/en/use-cases/mindtrace-beads/
• Automate.org, “Coherix Predator3D”: https://www.automate.org/products/coherix-inc/predator3d-structural-adhesive-and-sealant-bead-inspection-system
• 3BL Media, “Customer Challenge Inspired 3M Adhesive Mix Monitor” (September 29, 2026): https://www.3blmedia.com/news/customer-challenge-inspired-3m-adhesive-mix-monitor
• PR.com (RAMPF, announcement of exhibition at The Battery Show North America): https://www.pr.com/press-release/979771
• Charged EVs (Wevo-Chemie gap filler, July 28, 2026): https://chargedevs.com/newswire/wevos-wevosil-silicone-gap-filler-can-fill-millimeter-scale-battery-pack-gaps/
• E-Mobility Engineering (Parker Chomerics gap filler): https://www.emobility-engineering.com/?p=16671
• Fraunhofer IFAM, “A new generation of gap fillers”: https://ifam.fraunhofer.de/en/magazine/a-new-generation-of-gap-fillers.html
• GPD Global, “2025 Dispensing Machines”: https://gpd-global.com/2025-dispensing-machines/
• Nation Thailand (BOI EV-related approvals, July 3, 2026): https://www.nationthailand.com/business/40068192
• BOI OSOS (first-half 2026 investment applications, July 23, 2026): https://osos.boi.go.th/EN/news/2430/Thailand-Secures-43-6bn-1H-2026-Investment-Surge-as-Big-Tec/
• Nation Thailand (first-half 2026 investment applications by sector): https://www.nationthailand.com/business/economy/40068948
• Daily News (minimum wage, Notification No. 14): https://www.dailynews.co.th/news/4874401/
• Thai Law Online, “Minimum Wage in Thailand”: https://www.thailawonline.com/minimum-wage-in-thailand/
• PKF Thailand (Bangkok minimum wage of 400 baht): https://pkfthailand.asia/bangkok-raises-minimum-wage-to-400-baht-what-employers-and-workers-should-know/
• ChemLinked, “Thailand Hazardous Substance Act”: https://chemical.chemlinked.com/chempedia/thailand-hazardous-substance-act-hsa
• DIN, “DIN 2304-1”: https://www.din.de/en/wdc-beuth:din21:245690516