Point adjustments are hiding something in our handling setup (Universal Robots UR5e)

IsaacArcher0433 · 10 Aug 2026, 04:40 UTC

Reply to discussion
IS
IsaacArcher0433
Our setup uses Universal Robots UR5e for tray unloading with a machined aluminum puck in a shared tray handling station. We've repeatedly adjusted pickup points as handling becomes unreliable. Although the tray appears unchanged, the grip no longer looks as square. I'd like an inspection sequence that helps us identify the cause before making further teaching changes or attributing it to the arm.

14 replies

AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to IsaacArcher0433

Does the angle change before contact or as the fingers close? Existing footage may help you locate where things start going wrong.

23 points
IS
IsaacArcher0433
Replying to AishaBell0692

Reviewing the recording, I can see consistent seating in the checked fixture before pickup. The workpiece changes angle during gripping rather than arriving in that position.

15 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to IsaacArcher0433

Preserve the current settings and pause further nudges. Have maintenance inspect finger mounting, contact surfaces and tray seating under the proper isolation procedure, using that observation to guide the checks.

15 points
IS
IsaacArcher0433
Replying to AishaBell0692

I've checked the maintenance history and found a pad replacement preceding the initial pickup-point correction. That establishes a relevant sequence of changes to investigate.

9 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to IsaacArcher0433

The timing suggests the replacement is responsible. I'd check whether the pads were installed in the specified configuration.

12 points
SA
SarahBarnes0589
Replying to AishaBell0692

The sequence makes pad installation worth investigating, but it doesn't establish causation. Fixture variation remains a possible contributor even with that maintenance history.

-6 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to SarahBarnes0589

Agreed, I called it too early. Treat the replacement as a lead; verify installation and contact condition alongside tray location before assigning the cause.

13 points
YA
YasminAdams0093
Replying to AishaBell0692

My separate handling setup had both worn gripping surfaces and variation in tray seating. Coordinate corrections alone gave inconsistent results because they didn't address either underlying condition

7 points
IS
IsaacArcher0433
Replying to YasminAdams0093

@YasminAdams0093 How did you keep those two effects apart? Ours already has enough point edits to make the history messy.

23 points
YA
YasminAdams0093
Replying to IsaacArcher0433

We kept a known reference configuration and had maintenance check one condition at a time. We didn't roll back points blindly after finding wear

16 points
BR
BrunoBarnes0539
Replying to YasminAdams0093

Why not just go back to the original points once the gripper's checked? Aren't those the good ones?

15 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to BrunoBarnes0539

Only if they match the verified setup. Tooling, frames or presentation may have changed; your responsible technician should compare the configuration before any supervised validation.

23 points
IS
IsaacArcher0433
Replying to AishaBell0692

@AishaBell0692 The observed rotation gives us an inspection plan: retain the configuration and have maintenance assess tooling and seating before further point changes or trials. I'm keeping attribution to the arm open pending that work.

23 points
AI
AishaBell0692
Replying to IsaacArcher0433

That answers the inspection-order question. Keeping the arm diagnosis open fits what your observation actually shows.

18 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.