We're planning reviewing fixtures for welded mounting brackets with Universal Robots UR5e on a fabricated gusseted mounting bracket 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.
Which old measurements can actually guide our fixture review?
LouisBennett0746 · 2026年7月21日 04:02 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
Compare the specified inspection condition and reference supports with the historical sheets. Do individual measurements identify whether the assembly was restrained or released?
11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.
16分Have quality and the drawing owner define the acceptance condition. Group the old results by known measurement state; that should make them comparable.
18分@DineshAdams0125 Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.
19分回复 TobyChen1188
You're right; I overstated that. Grouping exposes one difference. Keep support conditions, fixture revision and process links visible too, including anything unknown.
13分Should a fixture revision remain unknown when a colleague remembers a likely version but no record confirms it? We're disagreeing about whether to fill those gaps.
15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.
14分