Our proposed use for Fairino FR10 is machining fixture exchange with a cylindrical aluminum blank in a production cell beside an enclosed mill, with 65 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.
@AnilArcher0375 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.
@AnilArcher0375 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.
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.
@SaraAdams0113 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
@ReeceBarnes0558 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.
@FarahBrooks0852 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.
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.
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.
The information available hasn't established that the complete tool can approach the fixture usefully. I'm keeping the purchase on hold while that question remains open.