We're planning defining dimensional control for bracket welding with Universal Robots UR5e on a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket in a small steel assemblies factory. 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.
@ChenBaker0442 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.
Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.
@ChenBaker0442 Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.
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.
@HazelAli0223 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.
I'll preserve the uncertainty on those historical entries. Establishing the intended condition gives the review a basis without supplying missing facts about past measurements.
@ChenBaker0442 For the linked samples, add incoming fit-up observations beside released results. Your welding engineer can assess any association within the documented process conditions.
I've found varying incoming fit-up in the traceable records for assemblies that changed shape after release. The association is visible, although it doesn't establish causation.
The fixture decision remains open because the current measurement evidence doesn't justify a revision intended to establish acceptable released dimensions.