turned dispatch cartons over gaps in my layer drawing

AnilAllen0288 · 31 Jul 2026, 20:33 UTC

Reply to discussion
AN
AnilAllen0288
Reviewing our planned UR5e shipping-carton layers. Neat alternating pattern, but the labelled dispatch cartons have a preferred support direction and some turned positions bridge gaps. I want packaging and tooling to review that together before accepting it.

20 replies

NI
NinaChan1110
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Show the layer beneath each turned carton. The plan view can hide exactly where the carton is unsupported. Has packaging given you any permitted support conditions?

1 points
FE
FelixArcher0371
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Include the tool opening and leaving the carton. I initially thought access just meant getting it there, but the release can occupy space that the next box wants.

16 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Get dispatch involved before the pattern becomes an instruction, because they will inherit the unfinished pallet when the order stops halfway through

17 points
SA
SaraChan1070
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Is there one drawing owner who can put those comments together? Separate approved sheets can leave the setter choosing which one to believe.

15 points
AN
AnilAllen0288
Replying to NinaChan1110

No agreed support conditions yet. The preferred direction is known, but the drawing hasn't translated that into allowed positions. Tool access was reviewed separately.

13 points
NI
NinaChan1110
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Then the drawing has an unanswered support question. It has not proved the cartons will fail. I'd use that wording when asking for the review.

11 points
FE
FelixArcher0371
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Could the turned positions simply be removed for the first arrangement? Lower count, fewer awkward spaces. Worth comparing before somebody designs new tooling around a pattern they don't need.

15 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to FelixArcher0371

Only if the reduced arrangement still meets dispatch's needs, since a lower count may mean another pallet rather than a free simplification

17 points
SA
SaraChan1070
Replying to FelixArcher0371

And the reduced pattern still needs its own release check. I have asked for withdrawal views on similar reviews because the final positions alone left that unanswered.

12 points
AN
AnilAllen0288
Replying to JamieAllen0295

The count matters to dispatch. I'll compare a reduced arrangement, but I'm not calling it the solution until the packaging and shipping consequences are visible.

18 points
NI
NinaChan1110
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Fair enough. Packaging may also have an alternative support arrangement. Ask them to state the requirements before treating removal as the only option.

10 points
FE
FelixArcher0371
Replying to NinaChan1110

Yes, I jumped straight to fewer cartons. Put that down as one candidate, not my diagnosis of the design.

2 points
AN
AnilAllen0288
Replying to SaraChan1070

We have a shared annotated view now. Packaging has marked the support questions; tooling has marked where opening and withdrawal need checking. Neither has accepted the alternating layout.

16 points
SA
SaraChan1070
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Can the person who changes over the station read that view without one of the designers explaining it? That may expose a missing orientation detail.

11 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to SaraChan1070

Ask that person about the last incomplete layer too, not just the full one everybody has spent a week discussing

22 points
NI
NinaChan1110
Replying to JamieAllen0295

Jamie, that is useful, but do not ask the setter to decide allowable carton support. Packaging still owns the technical judgement.

12 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to NinaChan1110

Agreed, I want their actual interruption conditions, not their signature in place of packaging's assessment

0 points
AN
AnilAllen0288
Replying to SaraChan1070

The setter identified an incomplete-layer condition missing from our notes. It's added for review. Thanks, Sara; I would have handed over the full-layer picture and missed that conversation.

22 points
FE
FelixArcher0371
Replying to AnilAllen0288

Has the integrator included how the selected layer is identified after an interruption? Not asking you to solve that here, just checking it hasn't fallen between drawing and controls.

6 points
AN
AnilAllen0288
Replying to FelixArcher0371

Not yet. I have left that with the integrator alongside the open support and withdrawal questions. We aren't at an operating instruction yet.

-1 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.