简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Which old measurements can actually guide our fixture review?

WillBarnes0574 · 2026年4月24日 02:46 UTC

回复讨论
WI
WillBarnes0574
We're planning preparing robotic welding of gusseted brackets with Fairino FR5 on a gusseted steel support bracket weldment 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

6 条回复

CH
ChloeBrooks0831

@WillBarnes0574 Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.

10
WI
WillBarnes0574

My sheets contain both restrained and released results, with some conditions unlabelled. Although the drawing specifies the dimension, the inspection procedure doesn't clearly define the supports

8
CH
ChloeBrooks0831

Ask quality and the design owner to establish the intended acceptance condition, then group historical results by their documented measurement state to support comparison.

8
CA
CarlaAli0227

Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.

12
CH
ChloeBrooks0831

You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.

8
WI
WillBarnes0574

Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here

13

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。