I put our machined bracket samples into the proposed inspection nest and they don't all settle the same way. The CAD view looks convincing because every contact lands neatly on a surface. At the bench, one sample seems to find a seat with hardly any fuss and another needs persuasion before it looks similar. Somebody suggested a stronger clamp. I don't want that to become an answer before we understand which contacts are locating the bracket and which are fighting it. Where would you begin?
Begin with a contact map tied to the part's intended inspection datums. Then compare identified samples under the same static seating method. A stronger clamp may make the surfaces meet while concealing why they did not meet naturally; that is not yet evidence of a sound locating scheme.
I should be more precise about persuasion. I pressed the second sample by hand during the bench review, not in a robot run. It looked seated while I held it, then showed a gap again when I let go. I didn't measure that gap and I haven't asked anyone to increase clamping.
Also establish which contact opens when you release it. Or rather, record what can actually be observed before calling the bracket distorted. A gap alone doesn't explain which surface or constraint created it
Ada, not recorded across repeated seats yet. Rachel, no, hand pressure isn't intended for normal loading. Jane, the visible gap is at a support pad but I can't say what the opposite contacts were doing. I'll take that incomplete observation back to the fixture designer.
There is enough there to justify a proper comparison without buying a clamp. Ask the designer to identify the role of the side contacts as well as the pads, and have the measurement owner confirm the relevant datums. If a contact bears on a variable or unfinished surface, that may matter, but we have not established that about your samples.
Thanks Ada. I had put the awkward one aside and was about to send only that to the designer. Both are identified now, with a request to compare repeated seating and contact gaps. No fixture change approved.
The static comparison repeated the gap on the awkward sample. The designer has not yet related it to the part datums or identified the responsible contact. So we have a more reproducible observation, not a reason to order a stronger clamp.
That narrows the next inspection. I would wait for the datum and contact explanation before deciding whether the sample, fixture or both need attention