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。
SaraBrown0896 · 2025年3月12日 07:53 UTC
I'd ask packaging to mark the intended load paths through two stacked layers, using the actual filled case construction. I'm no carton designer, but a single top view doesn't show where the upper case transfers its load.
13分Requested that. The existing drawing gives outer dimensions only, with no internal packing details.
1分Those internal details may matter a lot. In our samples the contents were supported by inserts, so the outside rectangle told us very little about where the load reached the base. Packaging had to explain that before the robot review made sense.
18分Have any packed samples actually deformed, or is this a concern from the drawings? Keep observed damage separate from a support arrangement that has not been assessed.
7分Fair correction. I was talking about what our case construction required, not evidence that your pattern fails. You're asking for an assessment, and the outcome could be acceptable support, a changed pattern or a changed pack.
15分Bring the pack designer and tool supplier to the same layout review once those details are available.
9分Yes, especially if changing gaps helps the gripper release but changes support underneath the next layer. Otherwise each supplier can improve their own drawing and leave you with two versions that no longer agree.
6分No damaged samples observed. This is a drawing concern before the proposed stack has been trialled.
8分Could a supervised packing trial answer the support question before you invest in the robot sequence? I'd let packaging define the trial rather than assume a hand-stacked example represents shipping conditions.
16分Packaging will define a trial. Integrator has requested the same final layout for the tool review.
1分That sounds like the right people now have the actual question. Ask for the trial result against that specific layout, including what wasn't tested, so nobody later reads a packing trial as proof of every transport condition.
23分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .