I'm reviewing historical records for our planned preparing robotic welding of gusseted brackets with Fairino FR10 and a steel gusseted bracket assembly in a precision fabrication quality department. The notes describe alignment under restraint but dimensions outside the drawing requirement after release. I'd like to distinguish incoming fit-up, fixture location and final acceptance before carrying an unexplained correction routine into the new cell; no live welding adjustments are involved.
Does the inspection procedure define the released condition and reference supports? Check that alongside whether each old measurement says how the assembly was held.
@AnikaBennett0769 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.
@AnikaBennett0769 Grouping by restraint state won't fully establish comparability if reference supports, fixture revisions or process revisions differ or remain unknown within each group.
@ClaraChan1046 You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
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.
@AnikaBennett0769 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.