目视检查可靠性评估方法

IF 1 4区 工程技术 Q4 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION Insight Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1784/insi.2023.65.10.541
M Blankschän, D Kanzler, R Liebich
{"title":"目视检查可靠性评估方法","authors":"M Blankschän, D Kanzler, R Liebich","doi":"10.1784/insi.2023.65.10.541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-destructive testing (NDT) plays an important role in quality assurance and ensuring reliable ongoing operations in many industries. Thus, the importance of reliability assessment of inspection results is increasing. Current standards and regulations provide several approaches for this purpose. For example, DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018-03 provides general requirements to determine measurement uncertainty. In contrast, method-related standards such as DIN ISO 19828:2021-03 specify detailed requirements for visual inspection (VT), considering environmental conditions and other factors (for example experience of the inspection personnel). In contrast, VDA Volume 5 defines visual inspection as an attributive method, making measurement uncertainty determinations unnecessary. Instead, the reliability of the inspection process is evaluated by proficiency tests. This paper examines approaches of regulations, based on previous experiments, for their applicability and suitability for considering the reliability of visual inspections. It is shown that individual measurement values (for example illuminance) are not suitable for this purpose. Furthermore, it is shown that human factors (HFs) (for example training or experience of the inspector), considered in isolation, are also not sufficiently suitable. Hence, the combination of the qualification of inspection methods, by means of proficiency tests on reference objects, and the application of Cohen's kappa for evaluating human factors appeared to be more suitable for the investigated issue.","PeriodicalId":13956,"journal":{"name":"Insight","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approaches to assess reliability in visual inspection\",\"authors\":\"M Blankschän, D Kanzler, R Liebich\",\"doi\":\"10.1784/insi.2023.65.10.541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Non-destructive testing (NDT) plays an important role in quality assurance and ensuring reliable ongoing operations in many industries. Thus, the importance of reliability assessment of inspection results is increasing. Current standards and regulations provide several approaches for this purpose. For example, DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018-03 provides general requirements to determine measurement uncertainty. In contrast, method-related standards such as DIN ISO 19828:2021-03 specify detailed requirements for visual inspection (VT), considering environmental conditions and other factors (for example experience of the inspection personnel). In contrast, VDA Volume 5 defines visual inspection as an attributive method, making measurement uncertainty determinations unnecessary. Instead, the reliability of the inspection process is evaluated by proficiency tests. This paper examines approaches of regulations, based on previous experiments, for their applicability and suitability for considering the reliability of visual inspections. It is shown that individual measurement values (for example illuminance) are not suitable for this purpose. Furthermore, it is shown that human factors (HFs) (for example training or experience of the inspector), considered in isolation, are also not sufficiently suitable. Hence, the combination of the qualification of inspection methods, by means of proficiency tests on reference objects, and the application of Cohen's kappa for evaluating human factors appeared to be more suitable for the investigated issue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insight\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insight\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1784/insi.2023.65.10.541\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insight","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1784/insi.2023.65.10.541","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多行业中,无损检测(NDT)在质量保证和确保可靠的持续运行方面发挥着重要作用。因此,对检测结果进行可靠性评估的重要性与日俱增。目前的标准和法规为此提供了几种方法。例如,DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018-03提供了确定测量不确定度的一般要求。相比之下,与方法相关的标准,如DIN ISO 19828:2021-03,在考虑环境条件和其他因素(例如检验人员的经验)的情况下,规定了目视检验(VT)的详细要求。相比之下,VDA第5卷将目视检查定义为一种属性方法,使得测量不确定度的确定变得不必要。相反,检验过程的可靠性是通过能力测试来评估的。本文在以往实验的基础上,考察了法规方法在考虑目视检测可靠性时的适用性和适用性。结果表明,单个测量值(例如照度)不适用于此目的。此外,还表明,孤立地考虑人为因素(例如检查员的培训或经验)也不够合适。因此,通过对参考对象的熟练程度测试来确定检验方法的资格,并应用Cohen’s kappa来评价人为因素似乎更适合于所调查的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Approaches to assess reliability in visual inspection
Non-destructive testing (NDT) plays an important role in quality assurance and ensuring reliable ongoing operations in many industries. Thus, the importance of reliability assessment of inspection results is increasing. Current standards and regulations provide several approaches for this purpose. For example, DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018-03 provides general requirements to determine measurement uncertainty. In contrast, method-related standards such as DIN ISO 19828:2021-03 specify detailed requirements for visual inspection (VT), considering environmental conditions and other factors (for example experience of the inspection personnel). In contrast, VDA Volume 5 defines visual inspection as an attributive method, making measurement uncertainty determinations unnecessary. Instead, the reliability of the inspection process is evaluated by proficiency tests. This paper examines approaches of regulations, based on previous experiments, for their applicability and suitability for considering the reliability of visual inspections. It is shown that individual measurement values (for example illuminance) are not suitable for this purpose. Furthermore, it is shown that human factors (HFs) (for example training or experience of the inspector), considered in isolation, are also not sufficiently suitable. Hence, the combination of the qualification of inspection methods, by means of proficiency tests on reference objects, and the application of Cohen's kappa for evaluating human factors appeared to be more suitable for the investigated issue.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insight
Insight 工程技术-材料科学:表征与测试
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Official Journal of The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing - includes original research and devlopment papers, technical and scientific reviews and case studies in the fields of NDT and CM.
期刊最新文献
ISSUE INFORMATION Innovation Ecosystem Dynamics, Value and Learning I: What Can Hamilton Tell Us? Realizing the Promise of Digital Engineering: Planning, Implementing, and Evolving the Ecosystem Requirements Statements Are Transfer Functions: An Insight from Model-Based Systems Engineering Feelings and Physics: Emotional, Psychological, and Other Soft Human Requirements, by Model-Based Systems Engineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1