We're planning reviewing fixtures for welded mounting brackets with Fairino FR5 on a steel gusseted bracket assembly in a precision fabrication quality department. 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.
What should count as dimensional acceptance after welding? (Fairino FR5)
AmaraAdams0165 · 2026年4月21日 10:02 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
8 条回复
@AmaraAdams0165 Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
8分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.
13分@AmaraAdams0165 Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
7分Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.
5分@WillAllen0313 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
18分@GraceBell0668 Would you leave an empty fixture-revision field, even if someone remembers which one was probably used? That's already becoming an argument here.
4分Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.
15分I had a separate bracket job where inferred fixture revisions created an apparent trend. Once the original sheets established the revisions, the trend no longer held.
20分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .