Our proposed use for Fairino FR10 is machining fixture exchange with a short steel blank in a production cell beside an enclosed mill, with 23 planned.
The reach sketch suggests the fixture is accessible, but it includes neither the gripper body nor the open machine door.
I need a fuller access check to inform our choice of arm.
@IsabelAli0213 Can you compare measured door geometry with the proposed gripper envelope? An offline layout including both may expose access issues that the reach sketch doesn't represent.
@FelixAdams0110 After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.
@IsabelAli0213 Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.
The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.
You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.
@FelixAdams0110 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it
A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.
Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.
@FelixAdams0110 For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was
Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.
@AlexAli0211 Not necessarily. Process readiness doesn't by itself establish safe access. Have the qualified assessor define the cell's protective measures and restart conditions alongside the process interface.
@FelixAdams0110 Would a supervised trial with a representative fixture let us make useful progress on geometry while the machine interface responsibilities are still being defined?
It can, with an appropriate supervised procedure. Record the actual tool and mount, and make clear that the trial addresses geometry while interface work remains open.