We're planning planning robotic welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR10 on a steel gusseted bracket in a subcontract metal fabrication department. The reach sketch includes every seam, but the torch is just a line.
The actual torch body and fixture clamps make inside-corner access look doubtful. This is offline only, with no live welding trials.
What should I ask our integrator to include?
Start with complete torch and clamp geometry, paired with the welding engineer's required joint access. Are those available for the integrator's offline comparison?
@JamieArcher0382 My available files include the complete torch drawing and clamp model, but the layout pack contains no process orientation requirements. Its assessment currently addresses reach alone.
@NadiaBell0639 Have the welding engineer specify the required orientations, then include the actual torch assembly in the offline model. That creates a basis for assessing clearance.
You're right; I described too narrow a check. Include approach, withdrawal, mounting hardware and the cable-routing envelope in the offline access review.
@NadiaBell0639 Ask your integrator to obtain and identify the routing assumptions with the relevant equipment supplier. An undefined cable path should stay a visible model limitation.
I had another welding layout with an accurate tool model and omitted extraction hardware. The resulting clearance assessment looked convincing but didn't cover the full arrangement.
The clamp's position contributes to workholding, so moving it requires the fixture designer and welding engineer to assess the resulting assembly support and welding conditions.
The complete torch geometry conflicts with a clamp at a required orientation supplied by the welding engineer. I can identify that exact condition for the joint review.
@NadiaBell0639 Keep that required orientation attached to the image. Otherwise someone may rotate the torch until it clears and think they've solved your process question.