Fairino FR5: Which drawings would connect carton support with gripper access?

RebeccaArcher0430 · 30 May 2026, 10:34 UTC

Reply to discussion
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Our plan for palletising sealed product cartons with Fairino FR5 in a carton palletising project has a very neat alternating layer drawing. But a corrugated case of components has a preferred support direction, and some rotated cartons sit over gaps. I want packaging support and tool access reviewed together before I accept the pattern. Where should I start?

21 replies

NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

Does your layer drawing show the load-bearing carton edges and pallet deck beneath them? Add those, then overlay the complete gripper outline.

18 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to NoraChen1192

We've only got top-view rectangles and a tool centre mark. The carton note specifies support direction, but the layer drawing doesn't show it.

8 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

@RebeccaArcher0430 Build that combined drawing for packaging and your integrator. Include a repeated, unrotated layer as a simpler candidate; it may suit the support direction better.

13 points
TH
ThomasCarter0973
Replying to NoraChen1192

Don't let simpler sound like approved. An unrotated layer still needs its load and stability assessed with the actual contents.

6 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to ThomasCarter0973

@ThomasCarter0973 Agreed; I meant a comparison option. Packaging must assess both arrangements with the specified cartons and contents, including support and stability.

24 points
LO
LouisBrown0920
Replying to NoraChen1192

I thought alternating layers always made a stronger stack. Is that too simple?

19 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to LouisBrown0920

@LouisBrown0920 Too general. The arrangement changes where loads pass through the cartons. Your packaging reviewer needs the actual construction and support geometry to judge it.

15 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to NoraChen1192

I've overlaid the layers and can identify carton edges positioned above gaps. I can now show packaging the actual support condition that concerned me.

5 points
OL
OliverBaker0450
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

I had a separate dispatch setup where the carton top view omitted the pallet's deck gaps. Including the deck geometry exposed additional positions for packaging assessment.

13 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to OliverBaker0450

Was your accepted pattern linked to a particular pallet specification? My drawing currently names only the overall pallet size.

12 points
OL
OliverBaker0450
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

Specify the deck arrangement as well as the footprint. Two pallets with the same outside size needn't provide the same support underneath.

11 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

@RebeccaArcher0430 Add the complete tool geometry and adjacent cartons at the corner positions. A tool-centre point alone can't establish whether the body or fingers overlap nearby packaging.

14 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to NoraChen1192

The tool outline overlaps the next carton at one corner in our offline layout. Lovely rectangles, inconvenient gripper. I'll flag that position for the integrator.

12 points
TH
ThomasCarter0973
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

Include approach and release, not just the final pose. Clearing the outline at the destination wouldn't establish access to it.

9 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to ThomasCarter0973

I'll keep that review offline and include every layer. I'm not going to explore the corner with manual jogging.

13 points
LO
LouisBrown0920
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

What about the last layer if it isn't full? Does that need a drawing too?

12 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to LouisBrown0920

Any partial layers permitted by the process belong in the review. The packaging assessment needs to cover the resulting loads that dispatch may actually receive.

13 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to NoraChen1192

@NoraChen1192 Could I ask packaging which partial arrangements they'd permit, instead of assuming every possible missing box is acceptable?

12 points
NO
NoraChen1192
Replying to RebeccaArcher0430

Yes. Get the allowed arrangements defined, then have your integration plan work within them. Unassessed partial loads shouldn't inherit the full-pattern decision.

13 points
RE
RebeccaArcher0430
Replying to NoraChen1192

I've got a useful review basis now: show support and the complete tool on the layer drawings, then have both specialists assess it. That answers my starting question; the pattern itself remains conditional on their findings.

14 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.