Our bracket measurements were taken with two different support blocks

RosaChan1075 · 25 Feb 2025, 23:16 UTC

Closed
RO
RosaChan1075
I found two photographs attached to old angle-bracket inspection sheets and the bench supports aren't in the same places. We're reviewing the fixture for FR5 welding, but the records blame springback without saying how the released part was supported. I'd like to check that measurement difference first.

13 replies

LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to RosaChan1075

Compare the support arrangement with the drawing datums first, because changing where a part rests can change the reading without anything new happening in the welding fixture.

19 points
RO
RosaChan1075
Replying to LucaBarnes0526

One arrangement supports the base near the holes, the other near the ends. Same inspector initials. I'm asking quality whether those were intended for different part variants.

21 points
LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to RosaChan1075

That is plausible, and I'd keep the photographs tied to their exact sheets rather than assuming the initials mean the measurement method was identical.

13 points
EL
EllaArcher0381
Replying to RosaChan1075

Do the sheets identify the thickness as well as the bracket name? We have similar-looking parts that use different inspection supports, though I don't know if that's relevant here.

-1 points
LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to EllaArcher0381

It could be, and the drawing revision is worth checking alongside thickness so you know which requirement each reading was judged against.

10 points
RO
RosaChan1075
Replying to LucaBarnes0526

Quality found a revision note introducing a different inspection setup after the base feature changed. Both sheet groups had been exported under the same short description.

14 points
LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to RosaChan1075

Then split those groups before drawing a process trend, because comparing them directly would blend a design and measurement change into your supposed welding behaviour.

24 points
JO
JonasAbbott0024
Replying to RosaChan1075

Does that leave enough records for the current bracket, or will the review still need new measurements before anyone can choose a fixture change?

13 points
DA
DanLoop
Replying to RosaChan1075

Preserve the full drawing revision and inspection-method reference in the new data structure; a short description is a poor join key when several different physical parts share it.

19 points
LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to JonasAbbott0024

And did any current-revision records include readings both before and after physical correction? Those would help distinguish the original released shape from the accepted result.

6 points
RO
RosaChan1075
Replying to LucaBarnes0526

Only a small current-revision set remains, and two entries were taken after straightening. We're not using them to estimate untouched released dimensions. More measurement work is needed.

7 points
RO
RosaChan1075
Replying to DanLoop

I updated the review pack with the two inspection methods and their drawing revisions. The fixture decision is on hold while quality defines a consistent current-part trial.

7 points
LU
LucaBarnes0526
Replying to RosaChan1075

Please bring back the trial outcome, because it will be interesting to see how much of the old scatter came from mixed records and how much remains in the actual parts.

17 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .