Our proposed use for Fairino FR10 is machine fixture unloading with a short steel blank in a supervised machine tending bay, with 149 planned. The reach sketch suggests the fixture is accessible, but it includes neither the gripper body nor the open machine door.
I need a fuller access check to inform our choice of arm.
@LuisBell0695 Can you compare measured door geometry with the proposed gripper envelope? An offline layout including both may expose access issues that the reach sketch doesn't represent.
@SofiaBrown0891 After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.
Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.
You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.
@SofiaBrown0891 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.
@AmaraChan1122 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.
A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.
@SofiaBrown0891 The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?
Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.
Our unloading retreat differed from loading because the held workpiece changed the envelope. Modelling the empty gripper alone gave us a very flattering answer.
Name whoever owns the interface work. Otherwise the robot and machine contacts can both think the other has covered fixture state and permission to enter.
Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.
@SofiaBrown0891 I've decided to base our arm selection on a measured access review. A workable layout for the complete tool and a qualified assessment will be conditions of choosing the arm.