简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Enough reach, incomplete drawing - machining fixture exchange

JuliaArcher0413 · 2026年6月5日 15:57 UTC

回复讨论
JU
JuliaArcher0413
Our proposed use for Fairino FR5 is machining fixture exchange with a cylindrical aluminum blank in a compact machining workshop, with 92 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.

18 条回复

MA
MayaChen1171

Got measured outlines for the opening and gripper? An offline layout might catch what the reach circle misses.

14
JU
JuliaArcher0413

Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

0
MA
MayaChen1171

@JuliaArcher0413 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.

6
JU
JuliaArcher0413

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.

14
MA
MayaChen1171

@JuliaArcher0413 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

9
HE
HenryBennett0699

Bigger could bring another obstruction. Extra reach won't shrink the gripper past that handle.

-4
MA
MayaChen1171

You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.

22
BR
BrunoAli0191

@MayaChen1171 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

12
JU
JuliaArcher0413

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

1
RI
RickShift

@JuliaArcher0413 Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

18
MA
MayaChen1171
回复 RickShift

@RickShift 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.

19
JU
JuliaArcher0413

The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?

17
MA
MayaChen1171

Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

14
BR
BrunoAli0191

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.

10
JU
JuliaArcher0413

I'll add both loaded and empty tooling to the model. The other unclear part of our quote is responsibility for the machine signals.

8
HE
HenryBennett0699

@JuliaArcher0413 Get the interface responsibility explicit. A robot supplier and machine contact can each assume the other has handled access permission and fixture state.

9
JU
JuliaArcher0413

Measured access review first, then an arm decision. I've settled on that route; choosing the arm depends on a workable full-tool layout and qualified assessment.

5
MA
MayaChen1171

@JuliaArcher0413 Using an assessed layout as the condition gives the selection a clear basis beyond the reach sketch.

18

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。