What should our FR10 unloading review show beyond the steel blank?

OliverBrooks0798 · 2 Jul 2026, 23:17 UTC

Reply to discussion
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Our short-steel-blank sketch reaches the fixture but omits the gripper body and open machine door; what complete removal view should I request before choosing the FR10?

11 replies

OS
OscarBell0619
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Is the actual held orientation defined by the toolmaker, including the adapter and connections?

2 points
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Replying to OscarBell0619

Held orientation is defined, Oscar, but the rear fittings are missing and the door outline is generic

9 points
LE
LeahBell0669
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Then combine that complete assembly with surveyed machine geometry through loaded withdrawal and the required empty return. Does the layout owner also have the setter's fixture-change task?

2 points
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Replying to LeahBell0669

Not the setter's task yet; I've asked the integrator to include it beside the tool route and the machine lead's door survey

12 points
JA
JasperArcher0377
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Include the actual destination release too. I'd want the blank's route to finish where the operator receives it, not at a convenient clear pose just outside the machine; that last bit can change the tool's opening and return path.

20 points
OS
OscarBell0619
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Will the complete loaded-tool assessment cover the proposed movement as well as static mass?

14 points
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Yes, that assessment is assigned to the integrator with the toolmaker's mass properties; Jasper, destination release is in the scope too, though the full model has not returned yet

19 points
JA
JasperArcher0377
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Any result from the combined model now, Oliver? Interested which missing feature changes the choice, rather than assuming the open door will necessarily be the limiting one.

5 points
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Replying to JasperArcher0377

The rear connection routing interferes with the fixture-change lifting path, while the modelled automatic removal route clears; the machine lead and integrator are comparing routing alternatives without changing the setter's approved handling method

10 points
OL
OliverBrooks0798
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

One revised connection arrangement avoids that overlap in the model, but its support and movement allowances still need assessment with the toolmaker; thank you Jasper, the door wasn't the finding that held up this candidate

21 points
LE
LeahBell0669
Replying to OliverBrooks0798

Keep that alternative provisional until those allowances are answered. A routing line drawn clear of the lifting path is useful geometry, not proof the fitted connections can operate and be maintained there.

4 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.