I'm reviewing our proposed planning robotic welding of bracket assemblies with Fairino FR10 and a welded support bracket assembly in a welded-assemblies production workshop.
Every seam falls within the reach sketch, which represents the torch as a line, but the full torch body and clamps raise doubts about inside-corner access.
We're assessing the layout offline without live welding trials; I need a concrete request for the integrator.
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?
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.
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.
@MeiChan1125 The proposed additions still need approach, withdrawal and cable-envelope coverage. A convincing clearance image at one pose doesn't establish those aspects of access.
@LeahBell0669 That's a necessary correction to my scope. The review should cover approach and withdrawal with the mounting hardware and cable-routing envelope, as well as the process pose.
@AmyAllen0293 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.
The limitation of the reach sketch is clearer, although it doesn't settle usable access. I'll keep concept acceptance open pending assessment of actual geometry and process requirements.