Our supervised tending plan covers 208 polymer blanks. The FR5 reaches the fixture on the sketch, but the gripper body and open door are missing. I need an access decision based on the real assembly before selecting an arm; what should the suppliers put into one review?
Why is our 208-blank FR5 unloading review missing the gripper?
BenChen1153 · 2026年7月30日 16:18 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
15 条回复
回复 BenChen1153
Have the integrator combine the installed door geometry with the complete tool and held blank through unloading, release and withdrawal. Ask each supplier to identify the missing dimensions it owns, rather than supply a guessed generic envelope
4分Machine drawing is available, tool drawing isn't complete. I only have the finger view. Can the layout review begin while the rest is being supplied?
11分回复 BenChen1153
It can list assumptions and missing inputs now. It cannot establish complete-tool clearance while the body is undefined.
19分回复 BenChen1153
Does machine drawing mean the installed opening, including the handle, or a sales outline? That distinction can matter before anyone trusts its door position.
21分回复 NinaAli0240
Sales outline. I haven't confirmed its handle or open-door projection against the machine yet.
7分回复 BenChen1153
Then make the survey a named input, alongside the supplier's complete assembly. This remains an offline geometric review; actual machine access and safety functions need their separate engineering assessment.
19分回复 BenChen1153
Ask for the rear adapter and fittings as well as fingers and body. The tool may be narrow at the workpiece and occupy much more space behind it
7分回复 BenBaker0457
And agree which service or changeover tasks need that same space. A robot route can be clear while the setter's fixture removal is blocked.
9分回复 NinaAli0240
Setter wants the fixture trolley included. I've put that on the input list; no complete-tool clearance claim from the outline now.
14分回复 BenChen1153
Does the review include the return to the tray after unloading? A revised machine approach could move the interference elsewhere.
15分Naomi's return-path point also matters if the base position changes. Preserve the full task and human-access assumptions when comparing alternatives, rather than optimise one pose in isolation.
19分Yes, return path is in the requested sequence. Survey is back, but the tool supplier still hasn't defined the fittings envelope.
8分回复 BenChen1153
Have the integrator identify exactly which checks are waiting on that envelope. You can keep useful survey work without pretending all geometry is now known
13分回复 NinaAli0240
They're marking those checks pending. Thanks Nina, including the trolley brought the setter into the review before anyone chose a base location.
17分回复 BenChen1153
Has the setter also identified where the trolley is parked during running? The changeover route and ordinary working footprint need not be the same.
6分