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。

Universal Robots UR5e: Separating fit-up, restraint and final inspection

ElenaAli0253 · 2026年5月28日 04:38 UTC

回复讨论
EL
ElenaAli0253
We're planning defining dimensional control for bracket welding with Universal Robots UR5e on a gusseted steel support bracket weldment in a welded-bracket fabrication workshop. 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.

15 条回复

SA
SaraBell0635

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

6
EL
ElenaAli0253

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.

17
SA
SaraBell0635

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

20
LE
LeoChen1145

Same restraint label still doesn't mean comparable. Unknown supports and mixed fixture or process revisions could remain inside those groups.

22
SA
SaraBell0635

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

8
EL
ElenaAli0253

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.

17
SA
SaraBell0635

Mark it unknown. You can note the recollection separately as something to investigate, but don't turn a probable revision into a recorded fact.

17
AI
AishaBaker0518

@SaraBell0635 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.

3
EM
EmmaBennett0724

If the fixture holds it straight, why isn't that already the result we want?

3
SA
SaraBell0635

@EmmaBennett0724 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.

20
EL
ElenaAli0253

The drawing owner confirms released inspection on specified reference supports. Quality is putting that condition into the sheet. At least that part won't be guessed.

25
LE
LeoChen1145

@ElenaAli0253 That establishes the intended inspection basis, but the measurement conditions of unlabelled historical results still remain unknown.

25
EL
ElenaAli0253

@LeoChen1145 I'll keep those old entries flagged. The new definition helps the review; it doesn't magically repair the old paperwork.

6
EL
ElenaAli0253

I can describe the measurement uncertainty better, although the cause of released variation remains open. Any fixture change still needs a specialist assessment supported by the inspection basis and traceable records.

14
SA
SaraBell0635

The remaining cause and assessment questions explain the open fixture decision. Improving the measurement basis is useful without claiming those questions are settled.

17

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。