We're planning laying out a bracket welding cell with Fairino FR10 on a fabricated mounting bracket in a subcontract metal fabrication department. The reach sketch includes every seam, but the torch is just a line. The actual torch body and fixture clamps make inside-corner access look doubtful.
This is offline only, with no live welding trials. What should I ask our integrator to include?
@RachelAbbott0087 Do you've the complete torch and clamp drawings? Ask the welding engineer for the joint-access requirements, then compare those with the actual geometry offline.
@PriyaArcher0394 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.
@RachelAbbott0087 Request those orientations from your welding engineer and put the real tool into the model. That will make the clearance question assessable.
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.
@TheoAdams0149 You're right; I described too narrow a check. Include approach, withdrawal, mounting hardware and the cable-routing envelope in the offline access review.
@RachelAbbott0087 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.
@PriyaArcher0394 I had another welding layout with an accurate tool model and omitted extraction hardware. The resulting clearance assessment looked convincing but didn't cover the full arrangement.
It has a workholding job as well. Your fixture designer and welding engineer need to assess whether a proposed move still supports the assembly and process.
@PriyaArcher0394 With the complete torch model, I can see a clamp conflict at an orientation the welding engineer requires. That's a specific review item now.