We're planning planning repeatable welding of bracket assemblies with Universal Robots UR5e on a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a precision fabrication quality department. Our old inspection notes say it looks aligned while restrained, then falls outside the drawing requirement after release.
I want to untangle fit-up, fixture location and final inspection before our new cell inherits an unexplained correction routine. This is a records review, not live welding adjustment
@ZaraAbbott0047 Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
The sheets mix clamped checks and released measurements. Some don't say which. The drawing has the dimension, but our procedure leaves the support condition vague
@ZaraAbbott0047 Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@CallumChen1143 That's a fair correction. State grouping addresses only one source of difference; the review also needs support conditions and fixture and process references, with missing information explicitly identified.
On my bracket job, filling blanks from memory produced a very persuasive trend. Finding the original fixture sheets made the trend disappear. Not my favourite chart.
Because the required inspection condition may be after release. Holding a shape under restraint doesn't establish the shape the assembly takes without that restraint.
I've had the drawing owner confirm the released inspection condition and its reference supports. Quality is adding those requirements to the sheet so the measurement state is explicit