I'm reviewing a nest for our planned placing drilled components in an assembly fixture with Universal Robots UR5e and a milled support bracket in a precision fixture review area.
Its multiple surface contacts look convincing in CAD, yet the bench samples seat differently.
A stronger clamp has been suggested; I'd like to check for conflicting location constraints before accepting the tooling.
@EmmaBell0637 Which contacts establish the drawing datums? Mark those separately from supports and clamps, then compare that map with the samples that rock.
Show the fixture designer where those constraints overlap, alongside the permitted hole-to-wall relationship. A relieved wall contact is one candidate for their review.
I got ahead of the drawing requirement there. Establish the necessary datum scheme before deciding which secondary contact can be changed to accommodate permitted variation.
@IsabelBell0648 Both touch it, but a locator establishes position. A support carries load without imposing a conflicting position. The design needs to make those roles work together.
In my separate fixture job, contacts labelled as supports turned out to constrain the same direction. Drawing the tolerances exposed what their labels had obscured.
Our inspection sheets show the awkward samples are within drawing limits. Their hole-to-wall dimensions differ within that allowance. So rejecting them would need another reason.
I'm holding the tooling decision. We still haven't established that the nest can locate acceptable parts consistently, and a stronger clamp doesn't resolve that missing basis.
@EmmaBell0637 The missing basis is clear: consistent location of acceptable parts hasn't been established. That explains why the tooling decision remains open.