Our proposed use for Fairino FR5 is machining fixture exchange with a short steel blank in an enclosed machining cell, with 40 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.
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.
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.
Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.
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.
A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.
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.
@MiaAllen0296 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.
Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.
The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?
Yes. Include the required entry direction and withdrawal conditions, not just an end pose. A reachable point can still have no usable approach with the proposed tool.
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.
@MinaBennett0772 I'm having trouble distinguishing process readiness from safe entry because the sales description makes them sound equivalent. Does the machine-ready signal establish both?
A process-ready signal isn't automatically a safety function. The qualified cell assessor needs to define protective measures and restart requirements separately from the production sequence.
Would a supervised trial with a representative fixture let us make useful progress on geometry while the machine interface responsibilities are still being defined?
@FelixBarnes0545 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.