I'm reviewing a separate carton size for our FR5 palletising plan. The alternating pattern fits more on the pallet, but the smaller cartons put their supported edges over gaps below. Our tool drawing doesn't show withdrawal between the neighbouring cases.
Would you compare a lower-count layer first, before asking the supplier to redesign the gripper around this pattern?
I would compare both before paying for a tool change, including the cost of shipping fewer cartons per pallet. I cannot tell you which support arrangement works, but the fullest top-view drawing isn't automatically the cheapest complete answer.
Packaging has sketched a lower-count layer with the support edges aligned. Tool supplier wants a filled sample stack before commenting on withdrawal. We can arrange that.
Yes, filled production samples with the internal supports. Our project budget covers the trial. Purchasing has agreed the supplier's attendance scope, but the visit is not booked yet.
Will the lower-count layer change where operators place the empty pallets? I'm wondering whether a tool change is the only hardware consequence, or whether the proposed stack moves relative to the cell.
I'd keep the pallet location fixed for the first comparison if possible, Toby. Otherwise Amara is pricing two changing layouts as well as two carton patterns.
Same pallet position in both sketches. The stack is narrower on two sides, so the tool approaches are different. I've asked for those to be shown, not just assumed clear.
Our simulation once checked every placed case and forgot the open tool on the way out. Ask for the open shape in the withdrawal study, especially beside an already placed carton
Supplier added the open shape. The high-count pattern has a conflict on one withdrawal. Lower-count sketch is clear there, but still needs the filled-carton review.
Amara, has purchasing priced the lower-count shipping arrangement yet? I'd like that number beside the possible gripper work, not buried after the engineering decision.
They have an estimate. It costs more per shipment, but the revised gripper price is still missing. Caleb, the final position is included in the lower-count study.
Thanks for clarifying the fixed pallet position earlier. Could you ask them about clearing a damaged carton too? Normal withdrawal isn't the only time someone needs access around the stack.
I'd resist expanding this into every possible recovery scenario before comparing the two patterns. Important work, yes, but you still need an answer to the basic support problem.
The filled trial rejected the high-count pattern's support arrangement. Lower-count passed the packaging checks and the agreed tool trial. We're taking that forward; damaged-carton access is on the cell review, not being treated as covered by this result.