We're considering Fairino FR5 for machine fixture unloading with a rectangular polymer blank in a supervised machine tending bay, with 33 planned. The sketch reaches the fixture.
Trouble is, we left out the gripper body and open door. I'd like to check access properly before choosing an arm.
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.
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.
Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.
@NadiaCarter0987 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.
@MayaCarter0997 Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?
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, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.
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.