Aaron Mac
- 26
- 1
I was going to consider both case. You think an advanced fea simulation is the way to go?
The discussion focuses on the design and sizing of a base for a robotic arm, emphasizing stability and structural integrity. Participants explore various aspects of base attachment, material choices, and calculations related to forces and moments affecting the design.
Participants generally agree on the importance of calculating forces and moments but have differing views on specific design choices, such as the use of gusset plates and the thickness of the base. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal base design and sizing methodology.
Participants mention various assumptions, such as the rigidity of the base plate and the quality of welds, which may impact the calculations. There is also uncertainty about the exact conditions under which the base will be anchored, including the type of concrete and the embedment depth of the bolts.
Engineers and designers working on robotic systems, particularly those focused on structural stability and load calculations in mechanical design.
First figure out why you may wish to choose one base over another. If you aren't bolting it down then the base needs massive enough (and/or with some footprint) so the robot doesn't tip during its maneuvers. You can solve that problem with Dynamics. If you want a lighter weight solution that doesn't need to be "moved" you can focus on designing the bracket, bolts, and substrate.Aaron Mac said:I was going to consider both case. You think an advanced fea simulation is the way to go?