Our proposed FR5 unload tool meets the mill's door frame in the layout, and raising the base has been suggested as a quick fix; I cannot choose that option without knowing what else the height change affects, so what belongs in the review?
Can a higher base rescue our unload layout?
ChloeCarter1005 · 14 Feb 2025, 04:15 UTC
19 replies
Replying to ChloeCarter1005
Which part intersects the frame, and at which stage of unloading?
4pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
The wrist-side adapter intersects the top corner at the first withdrawn pose, with the aluminium blank still held.
4pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Does raising the base actually change that required tool pose?
17pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
No, not if the tool orientation and withdrawal pose remain fixed; I see why a higher pedestal alone would not remove that particular clash.
6pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Exactly. The proposed change needs a revised feasible configuration, not height alone.
21pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Who suggested the pedestal? I'm not against one, but it sounds like everyone is moving the base because it's the easy thing to draw. The obstruction is at the tool.
3pointsReplying to DavidArcher0432
It could affect available configurations. We lack enough information to dismiss it altogether.
14pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
And a different support needs its own design review, including stiffness and access, so get the integrator to present it as a complete option rather than a taller rectangle.
11pointsReplying to DavidArcher0432
The suggestion came from our internal sketch review, not the integrator; I've sent the clash location and asked them to compare the complete options.
6pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Give each option its own tooling list as well, because a changed adapter can quietly turn into a spare part nobody knows they need to stock.
13pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Are both machine entry and loaded withdrawal included in that request?
18pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
Yes, including the intervening poses and the as-installed door arrangement; I also included our maintenance access area, which the original sketch ignored.
14pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
That should make the alternatives comparable. Has the actual tool assembly been selected?
11pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
If it hasn't, make the provisional geometry visible on the proposal so nobody mistakes a clearance study for approval of whichever tool turns up later.
-1pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
The gripper is selected, but the adapter remains provisional; the integrator is reviewing a different adapter orientation before spending time on the raised-base option.
7pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
I was too quick about the pedestal. Your original post made it sound like an offered fix. An internal idea waiting for a configuration review is a different thing.
6pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Thanks for clarifying the adapter status, that is precisely the bit I'd want identified in the eventual handover pack, with the approved drawing rather than this interim sketch.
16pointsReplying to ChloeCarter1005
Do you have an owner for that final assembly review?
15pointsReplying to ChloeBrooks0831
The integrator's mechanical lead owns it, with our maintenance planner reviewing access; we still have no approved unload layout, so the pedestal question remains undecided.
5pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .