Patent Application
20100153168
The present invention is generally related to inspection systems. More specifically, this invention relates to a system for inspection of industrial equipment assisted by a handheld device, which helps to ensure compliance of the safety and security of industrial equipment fit for business use. The present invention may be used to help prevent accidents that can happen during usage of such industrial equipment, as well as prevent negligent, missed or incomplete inspections of such industrial equipment.
National U.S. statistics show that approximately 20% of accidents on construction sites involve cranes. “For the 11 years 1984-94, 502 deaths occurred in 479 incidents involving cranes in the construction industry” (Suruda, p. 4), which amounts to an average of 44 fatal crane accidents per year, with an average of one human life lost per crane accident. The number of crane-related deaths are on the rise since those statistics were compiled, due to a number of factors, including an increase in the number of construction projects, an increase in the size of the construction projects, and an increase in the economic pressures to complete construction projects on time and under budget, which have resulted in shortcuts many consider to be unsafe.
The leading causes of death associated with crane accidents include electrocution (39%), crane assembly/dismantling (12%), boom buckling/collapse (8%), crane upset/overturn (7%), rigging failure (7%), overloading (4%), and being struck by a moving load (4%) (Neitzel, p. 1109). Electrocution is generally caused by the crane either hitting a power line or coming close enough to a high-voltage power line to spark an electric arc. Crane assembly/dismantling fatalities usually occur “when a worker underneath the boom was knocking the boom pins out while the boom was held by the pendant line. When the lower supporting pins were removed, the boom fell onto the worker” (Suruda, p. 4). Of the crane upset/overturn incidents whose cause is known (and not due to overload), most occurred while the crane was moving or because of a failure to extend the outriggers. Rigging failures mostly occurred because the load slipped from the rigging or the rigging broke during the lift. Overloading resulted in fatalities due to boom collapse or crane overturning.
A rash of crane accidents is occurring around the country resulting in national and international news. Tight economic conditions and high energy prices have led to large numbers of large scale energy-related construction projects, such as the extension and building of new oil refineries. These construction projects are on extremely tight time and budget schedules because of the economic realities of high energy, and specifically petroleum, prices. The result has been an unprecedented number of deadly, costly, and highly publicized crane accidents.
For example, on Jun. 18, 2008, a crane accident at a Texas oil refinery killed four people and injured six others. The crane was not scheduled to be operated that day. On May 30, 2008, a crane accident in New York City killed two workers when the boom and cab snapped off the turntable and fell, apparently because of a bad weld in the rotating plate. Proper inspections were not carried out on the crane, and the New York City Buildings Department Head was fired by the Mayor over this and another preceding incident. On Mar. 25, 2008, a crane accident in Miami killed two workers in the fall of a 20-foot section that was being lifted to extend the height of the crane. The safety personnel who made the safety rules did not follow their own safety rules of evacuating the construction management office in the event of a pick. On Mar. 15, 2008, a second crane accident in New York City killed seven people when a piece of nylon webbing broke, dropping a six-ton metal collar that was being installed. It dislodged the collar below, disconnecting the crane from the building and allowing it to topple over onto a residential building. Proper inspections were not carried out on the crane, the construction site had numerous safety violations, and neighbors, residents, and passer-by's complained and lodged reports of unsafe activity and operation of the crane.
Many parties have sought unsuccessfully to prevent crane accidents, including OSHA, the construction industry, and various researchers. Strong heavy construction industry growth, especially in the oil, natural gas, and energy field, as a result of the high price of crude oil and energy, has resulted in the hiring of many workers, a large proportion of whom may be inadequately trained.
It is evident that many crane hazards go unnoticed or that efforts to prevent crane accidents are not effectively implemented. Crane hazards on sites should be detected through rigorous inspections of construction sites and eliminated through effective preventive approaches.
Traditional approaches that have provided crane safety equipment and proper training have not reduced the number of crane accidents. Traditional crane safety training is not sufficient to enable crane operators to detect and eliminate crane hazards.
Motivating crane operators, workers, independent contractors, management, and apparently safety officers themselves to fully follow all safety guidelines at all times is perhaps the greatest challenge.
In 2006, Zachry Construction Company had a crane-related fatality. A news article reported that “a crane crew consisting of a crane operator, and six employees, were moving a Kobelco CK2500-II crawler crane across a highway while traffic was shut down on the evening of Oct. 24, 2006. The six employees, three on each track, were using the tracks of the crane as a conveyor, placing rubber mats on the back of tracks of the crane and removing the mats from the front and side of the tracks in order to lay the mats on the highway to protect the highway as the crane advanced. As the crane crossed the closed northbound lanes, from west to east, the crane operator had to swing the crane in order to prevent the boom from contacting a concrete bridge column. The alarms sounded and the crane began its swing. One employee who was working along the southern track was caught by the head between the track and the counterweight.”
Texas has led the nation with 26 crane-related fatalities in 2005 and 2006, according to federal statistics. Cranes in Texas operate without any state or local oversight.
Human lives are lost unnecessarily every year because recognized and known safety procedures are not followed, overlooked, or even ignored. Construction accidents are not only bad for worker morale, but they bring bad press and hinder worker recruitment. They are also huge financial and logistical liabilities. Even with safety programs in place, historical claims data indicates construction is a potentially highly risky venture financially, especially in large industrial projects. The cost of risk can be quantified—there has been a national average of 82 crane fatalities per year from 1997-2006 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). An average of 1 crane fatality per $8B of construction value (Construction Management Magazine). Direct & indirect accident costs average at 3.8% of construction value, which includes workers' compensation payments, general liability, and litigation expenses (Business Roundtable). In addition, for every dollar of direct cost, there is $2.20 of indirect costs.
For example, Zachry Construction Company estimates that one day's delay in the construction of an oil refinery or power plant can cost Zachry over $300,000 in liquidated damages arising from guaranteed delivery contracts with the plant owners. A fatality, or any serious accident at a construction site, always leads to delays of multiple days or even weeks, disrupting construction work, both for site clean-up, internal inspections, as well as OSHA inspections.
Some costs may have balance sheet implications, yet are hard to define, especially for large complex projects involving petroleum. The time required to replace mission critical infrastructure damaged in an accident is generally long. The environmental impact can be large as well. For example, the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in Alaska resulted in a judgment of $2.5B. The loss of corporate reputation and goodwill, intangible and often unrecoverable assets, is substantial in the event of a crane accident.
Cranes are but one example of industrial equipment that is subject to inspection for compliance with safety or security standards. Other possible industrial equipment includes vehicles such as airplanes, buses, trains, subways, cars, ships, and trucks, public buildings, privately-owned buildings, residential homes, highways, train tracks, airport runways, ship harbors, bridges, underground tunnels, shelters, dams, conventional power plants, nuclear power plants, particle colliders, oil extraction sites, oil refineries, communication towers, data centers, sewage systems, water treatment plants, water wells, reservoirs, and any other equipment or the like.
Examples of inspections on industrial equipment other than cranes include the inspection of commercial airplanes with FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) standards, the inspection of communication towers with FCC (Federal Communications Commission) standards, the inspection of dams with state dam safety standards such as NJAC (New Jersey Administrative Code) 7:20, the inspection of nuclear power plants with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) standards, and other similar inspections under public safety standards. Other inspection compliance requirements are associated with renewable energy systems and distributed energy systems, including wind turbines, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal plants, co-generation plants, biomass-fueled power plants, carbon sequestration projects, enhanced oil recovery systems, and the like. Therefore, as recognized by the present inventors, a system, method and apparatus of ensuring that inspections and maintenance procedures are carried out is highly desirable.
It is against this background that various embodiments of the present invention were developed.
The present invention is a method and a system for inspections and compliance verification of industrial equipment using a handheld device.
One embodiment of the present invention is a method for ensuring compliance of industrial inspection. For the inspector, this involves first segmenting one or more inspected components into one or more logical inspection points. Then the inspector scans one or more unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection point. Then the inspector takes one or more media samples of the inspected component at each logical inspection point. Then the inspector associates each media sample with the corresponding scan of the unique machine-readable tag. Finally, the inspector declares sub-optimal conditions of the unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection point, substantiated by corresponding media samples, if condition warrants such declaration. A timestamp is added for each action taken at each logical inspection point, said timestamp representing evidence of a date and a time of physical visitation to said logical inspection point and associated action.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves the additional step of either annotating each media sample in such ways that substantiate inspector statements of any inspected components passing inspection, or annotating each media sample in such ways that substantiate inspector statements of problems with inspected components found during inspection.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves carrying out the method described, specifically the steps of scanning of one or more unique machine-readable tags and taking of each media sample at each logical inspection point, with a multi-function handheld device.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves using unique machine-readable tags that have limited maximum scan range, such that the scanning of the tags requires physical proximity of an inspector to the logical inspection point and implies proper visitation made by the inspector to the logical inspection point.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves substantiating inspector statements of problems with inspected components by quoting standards from a standards document.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves generating a new work order item for any logical inspection point having a problem found during inspection.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves generating a problem reminder that requires an inspector to revisit any problems found during an inspection in future inspections.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique machine-readable tag a unique global positioning system (GPS) location.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an inspector performing the inspection. The inspector may be identified by scanning his ID tag, photographing his face, capturing his handwritten signature, and the like.
Another embodiment of the present invention involves correlating any subset of inspection data segmented as inspection events, and activating one or more actions based on the correlation performed in the correlating step.
The present invention also includes a related system by which the method of ensuring compliance of industrial inspection could be carried out. Such a system could be implemented as a computer system, embodied in a handheld device using separate unique machine-readable tags deployed throughout logical inspection points on a physical inspected component. The system may include integrated or separate hardware components for scanning of unique machine-readable tags and taking of media samples of the inspected component.
The invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which:
The invention generally pertains to an industrial inspection compliance system with which various methods can be carried out to the effect of assisting in an inspection and providing the means for compliance verification of a proper inspection. For the purposes of the text describing this invention, an inspection may represent the process of checking a physical component for safety, security or business reasons, doing the same for compliance with industry standards and guidelines, or a maintenance operation on a physical component for those same reasons. These methods can generally be best executed by a multi-function handheld device, carried to and used in the physical proximity of an inspection component by the inspector. Examples of multi-function handheld devices include the Apple iPhone®, the Psion Teklogix Workabout Pro®, the Motorola MC-75®, and the like, but the present invention is not limited to such devices as shown or described here. One aspect of the invention relates to scanning unique machine-readable tags deployed at logical inspection points defined by the inspector, and assigning a timestamp to the scanning operation. Another aspect of the invention relates to taking media samples of logical inspection points defined by the inspector, and assigning a timestamp to the media sample capturing operation. Another aspect of the invention relates to reporting of sub-optimal conditions of the unique machine-readable tags deployed at logical inspection points if its condition warrants such a declaration. Another aspect of the invention relates to associating a media sample with a corresponding scan of a unique machine-readable tag. Another aspect of the invention relates to annotating a media sample in such ways that substantiate statements of an industrial component passing inspection, or in such ways that substantiate statements of problems found with the industrial component.
These and other aspects of the invention are discussed below with reference to
Following block 100, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 101 where the inspector selects a logical inspection point to begin inspection. This may be done on the device software by selecting from a list of physical components or from a list of logical inspection points, depending on how the inspector chose to configure the system. Alternatively, this may be done by scanning the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the logical inspection point to be selected, as in block 104.
Following block 101, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to a decision block 103, where a decision is made if the unique machine-readable tag is in a “sub-optimal” condition (if it is not readable for whatever reason, it is considered to be in a sub-optimal condition). In the situation where the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the logical inspection point is found to be in sub-optimal condition, the industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 102, where the inspector may report the condition that justifies the sub-optimal condition. This reporting may be done in addition to or in lieu of scanning the machine-readable tag. A sub-optimal condition includes the condition of a tag being broken, the condition of a tag being unable to be scanned for any reason, the condition of a tag being absent for any reason, the condition of a tag being misplaced, or any other unacceptable condition or the like.
In the situation where the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the logical inspection point is not in a sub-optimal condition, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 104 where an inspector scans the unique machine-readable tag deployed at the selected logical inspection point. A unique machine-readable tag may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and its scanning are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Following block 104, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 106, where a timestamp is assigned to the scanning operation of block 104. The timestamp may be expressed as a date and time pair, POSIX time, or any other representation that is semantically consistent between any other timestamp assignment made in the scope of this method. The general purpose of the timestamp assignment is to seal a record of the point in time at which the inspector executed an operation that is a critical component to the proof of inspection. This step is important to the goal of ensuring compliance of the industrial inspection process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that block 104 may not only consist of the action of timestamp assignment, but possibly also the action of timestamp verification, such as the employment and execution of a digitally-signed timestamp, or any other action of the like.
Following block 106, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 108 where an inspector takes a media sample of the selected logical inspection point. A media sample is defined to be a photograph, a sequence of photographs, an ultrasonic image, an infrared image, any other type of mechanically, chemically or electromagnetically-obtained image, a video with an audio component, a video without an audio component, or any other visual or set of visual media or the like. The taking of a media sample may be done by a media input component either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to take and store the media sample.
Following block 108, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 110 where a timestamp is assigned to the media sample taking operation of block 108. The timestamp assignment in block 110 is of the same spirit and scope as the timestamp assignment described in block 106.
Following block 110, industrial inspection method 118 proceeds to block 112 where the media sample taken in block 108 is associated with a scanning of a unique machine-readable tag in block 104. This association may take the form of a database join table in which ID's of media samples are paired with ID's of unique machine-readable tags, with the ID's having already been established during the operations of scanning the unique machine-readable tag and taking the media sample. For example, an inspector may scan RFID (the unique machine-readable tag) tag number 0039850921847576, the operation of which is recorded by his handheld device software in a database table called “TagScans” that has a primary key called “id” and assigns this record an “id” of 3. Then the inspector learns from the device software that the RFID he just scanned is referring to a particular joint of the mast section of the tower crane he is inspecting, a logical inspection point he had segmented previously. He then takes a photograph (the media sample) of the vicinity of the RFID tag he just scanned, making sure to capture a good shot of the joint, which is the logical inspection point he intends to inspect. After taking the photograph, the handheld device software first records the photographing operation in a database table called “PhotoCaptures” that has a primary key called “id” and assigns this record an “id” of 8. Then it associates the two records just created from the RFID scanning and photographing operations by creating a new record in a database join table called “TagScansAndPhotoCaptures” with the following (TagScanId, PhotoCaptureId) pair: (3, 8). The tag scan and media sample are now logically associated, according to one embodiment of the present invention.
Following block 112, industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to decision block 113, where a determination is made by the inspector if the logical inspection point successfully passes the criteria established for the inspection. In the situation in which the logical inspection point passes the inspection, the industrial inspection method 150 proceeds to block 114 where an inspector annotates the media sample taken in block 108 in such ways as to substantiate his statement of the logical inspection point passing inspection. When an inspector allows a logical inspection point to pass inspection, he is making a very serious statement about the integrity of the physical component in the face of safety or security standards against which it must hold. Therefore, the step described in block 114 provides the means by which the inspector may add supportive marks, indications, statements, or other data or metadata of the like that serve to justify his statement of the logical inspection point passing inspection.
In the situation in which the logical inspection point does not pass the inspection, industrial inspection method 150 may possibly proceed to block 116 where an inspector annotates the media sample taken in block 108 in such ways as to substantiate his statement of problems found with the logical inspection point. A useful inspection will need to indicate how the physical component is faulty, what codes in which standards that the fault violates if there exists any applicable code or standard, what should be done to remedy the fault, or any other supportive material or the like. Therefore, the step described in block 116 provides the means by which the inspector may add supportive marks, indications, statements, or other data or metadata or the like that serve to justify his statement of problems found with the logical inspection point.
The process of annotating a media sample as described in block 114 and 116 includes any step that helps to substantiate a conclusive statement made by the inspector about a physical inspected component. The conclusive statement generally refers to either a statement of an industrial component passing inspection as in block 114 or a statement of problems found with an industrial component as in block 116, but may include any other conceivable conclusive statement or the like. For example, if the media sample taken is a photograph of a joint in the mast section of a tower crane and the inspector determines that the joint is not properly welded, the photograph is then annotated by the inspector to visually show the location of the improper welding. In this case, the inspector uses the touch screen capabilities of the handheld device and the capabilities of the software to draw a red circle on the digital photograph he took, encircling the segment of the photograph in which the improperly-welded joint is visible. One of ordinary skill would appreciate that drawing a red circle on a photograph is but one of many possible ways to annotate a media sample. Other methods include highlighting a segment of a photograph with a bright color such as done in the physical analogue of using a highlighter pen, creating and populating a free-form text field with a connected pointer line superimposed on a photograph and pointing to a specific point on the photograph, drawing a thick black border around the form of an object identified in an infrared image, making the same such annotations on a series of video stills all belonging to the same video sequence, superimposing text on a set of video stills to effectively subtitle a video, or any other method of media sample annotation or the like.
Following block 302, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 304 where the main screen of the handheld device software is presented to the inspector. This screen may contain buttons, text links or any other objects that allow the inspector to proceed with any aspect of the inspection.
Following block 304, a selection is made by the inspector from the main screen of the handheld device. An inspector may select a component for inspection from a drop-down menu, a list, or the like, in which case industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 306 (described below). An inspector may indicate that the inspection is complete, in which case industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 318 (described below). Alternatively, an inspector may simply scan a unique machine-readable tag, in which case industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 305 (described below).
If industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 306, the inspector chooses a general component to be inspected from a list of components presented to him by the software. These general components may either be whole physical articles or machines to be inspected, physical sections of the article/machine, or logical inspection points as described before. The list of components is generally prepared by the inspector before the inspection, but the software may allow the inspector to add new components during the inspection if there is a need to do so. Any functions having to do with on-the-spot component configuration, segmentation of physical inspected components into logical inspection points, selection of inspected component, or any other functions or the like, are within scope of block 306.
Following block 306, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 310 where the inspector explains the inability to scan a unique machine-readable tag whose identification refers to the component. Since the spirit of this invention pertains to compliance of inspection of industrial equipment, and since the inspector is able to select a component from a list of components in block 306, therefore bypassing the need to be in physical proximity of the inspected component, the inspector should be prompted to provide and record an acceptable reason as to why he cannot scan a tag. Block 310 represents a step in the inspection process that forces the inspector to explain why he is unable to scan a tag that is deployed at an inspection point for the purpose of ensuring that he is within physical proximity to the inspected component. Possible reasons may include the condition of a tag being broken, the condition of a tag being unable to be scanned for any reason, the condition of a tag being absent for any reason, the condition of a tag being misplaced, or any other unacceptable condition or the like.
If industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 305, the inspector scans a unique machine-readable tag deployed at the selected logical inspection point. A unique machine-readable tag may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag reader either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and the scanning of it are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The software then recognizes the scanned tag's unique identifier and proceeds to retrieve all of its associated data and begins the inspection process for the logical inspection point associated with that particular tag.
Following either block 305 or block 310, industrial inspection method 300 checks whether or not the selected component has already been inspected. At this point, the process of selecting an inspection component or a logical inspection point, either by way of manual selection on the handheld device software or by scanning a unique machine-readable tag that the software maps to a particular logical inspection point, is assumed to have already been completed. The next screen presented to the inspector by the software is determined by whether or not the selection has already been inspected.
If a determination is made that the selected component has not been inspected, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 312, where the software guides the inspector to initiate the process of inspecting the selected component. The inspection process itself involves one or more iterations of taking a media sample, as described in relation to block 108 of
In block 312, after the inspector takes the media sample and edits it as described above, the software presents the component inspection screen to the inspector. From this screen the inspector may choose to continue inspection of the same component, which may include such actions as typing in notes, speaking into an audio input device if one is available and is able to be interpreted and stored by the software, taking another media sample, or take another inspection action.
In block 312, industrial inspection method 300 may allow the inspector to add a quotation from some standards or specifications document, such as those of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). The software will present the inspector with an interface for navigating a document, on which he may carry out document navigation and selection actions such as capturing a screenshot of a section of the document, cropping the screenshot, annotating the screenshot, selecting text, selecting a page, or any other action or the like.
In block 312, industrial inspection method 300 may allow the inspector to insert any text selection, screenshot, link, reference of any sort, and the line, into any aspect of the inspection data that is associated with the particular inspected component or logical inspection point chosen in the particular iteration of block 312. For example, if the inspector is currently inspecting a welded joint of a tower crane mast section and he finds that the welding job is not done properly, not compliant with the ASME B 30.5 standard, then in carrying out the action of block 312, the inspector can navigate the ASME standards document to section B 30.5 and take a screenshot of the text of that particular section. He can then draw a red line underneath the sentences that describe the standard for a joint welding job that this particular joint does not comply with. Then, he may crop the screenshot such as to capture only the sentences he just underlined and then presses a button on the handheld device to insert this cropped screenshot as an attachment to his inspection data for the joint of the tower crane mast section.
In addition to allowing an inspector to select an item from a pre-populated checklist, which requires the inspector to go through each item on the checklist, in one embodiment of the present invention, the inspector can also make a free-form observation of a potential problem identified in the course of the inspection that may not be on the pre-populated checklist. If an inspector makes an observation of a potential problem during an inspection, whether from a pre-populated list or in free-form, the problem is logged by the inspection compliance system so that any future visits to the same site require the problem(s) noted in the previous inspection visit to be re-visited before the next inspection can be satisfactorily completed. Problems must be re-visited on subsequent inspections until they are fixed; re-visiting the problem means visiting the area where the problem was observed (and possibly swiping the machine readable tags), possibly noting any changes (taking new pictures, notes, etc. to describe changes), and optionally fixing the problems and recording pictures, notes, and the like of the fix. Problems will only be automatically populated into subsequent inspections until they are fixed.
In addition to allowing the inspector to perform an inspection, one embodiment of the present invention also allows the inspector to immediately offer to fix the problem (e.g., repair the welding of a section of the crane mast), and to automatically generate a bill to the customer for fixing the problem. One embodiment of the present invention allows the inspector to automatically generate, using the handheld device, a work items order for billing and accounting purposes, allowing the inspector to carry out the corrective measure immediately onsite without returning to the central office to generate a new work order. The work items order includes a list of the steps taken to fix each problem; a line item for each charge associated with fixing each problem; and a picture taken before and/or after the job is complete. The customer may then immediately review the work items order onsite, sign the inspection report and the work items order, and pay for both the inspection and the charges associated with fixing the problems with the industrial equipment, all before the inspector leaves the site.
Importantly, according to one embodiment of the present invention, the data associated with each inspection is stored and versioned in a manner analogous to versioning of source code. A virtual industrial equipment, and all of its subcomponent(s), is versioned for each inspection, in such a way as to ensure that the right information for each version of the industrial equipment and all of its subcomponent(s) is always associated with the correct inspection report. This also adds an additional layer of accountability, as it is known at all times where, when, and by whom each observation and change to the equipment was made over all time. In order to reduce space consumption on the hand-held device, only the current version of the item(s) being inspected are stored in the handheld device, in addition to any prior versions of the item(s) that are referenced by the current version; that is, only the “shallowest closure component” of the entire version tree is stored locally on the handheld device. That is, the “shallowest closure component” is the minimum set of versioned data necessary to fully represent the components in question in their latest state, including whichever earlier versions are referenced by the current state.
Returning to
Following block 312, industrial inspection method 300, proceeds back to block 304, representing the main screen, where the process continues as described above.
If the inspector indicates that he has completed the inspection, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 318, where the software checks that all components marked to be inspected have gone through the required inspection procedure. If a component has not gone through the inspection procedure, the software will check that the inspector has provided an explanation in lieu of the inspection procedure, a declaration of a missing component, or has provided a reason as to why he did not carry out the inspection procedure.
Following block 318, if a determination is made that the inspector has not fulfilled the requirements checked in block 318, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds back to block 304, representing the main screen, where the inspector is instructed to complete the inspection of the missing component(s) or to provide a justification why the missing component(s) cannot or is not being inspected. In this manner, the inspector is given a chance to inspect missed components or edit already-inspected components.
Following block 318, industrial inspection method 300 proceeds to block 307, where the industrial inspection method 300 allows the inspection to end, since the software has determined that the inspection process is complete because of the fulfillment of all requirements checked by the software in block 318. If the inspection requirements have not been completely fulfilled as determined in block 318, the software should preferably not allow the inspector to proceed to block 307 and end the inspection, since this would be inconsistent with ensuring complete compliance with the industrial inspection process.
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
The exemplary computer system 400 shown in
In most cases, the processor 408 together with an operating system operates to execute computer code and produce and use data. Operating systems are generally well known and will not be described in greater detail. By way of example, the operating system may correspond to OS/2, Apple OS/X, Apple iPhone® OS, Google Android® OS, DOS, UNIX, Linux, Palm® OS, Windows, Windows Mobile®, Windows CE®, and the like. The operating system can also be a special purpose operating system, such as may be used for limited purpose appliance-type computing devices. The operating system, other computer code and data may reside within a memory block 414 that is operatively coupled to the processor 408. Memory block 414 generally provides a place to store computer code and data that are used by the computer system 400. By way of example, the memory block 414 may include Read-Only Memory (ROM), Random-Access Memory (RAM), hard disk drive and the like. The information could also reside on a removable storage medium and loaded or installed onto the computer system 400 when needed. Removable storage mediums include, for example, CD-ROM, PC-CARD, memory card, floppy disk, magnetic tape, and a network component.
The computer system 400 also includes a display device 410 that is operatively coupled to the processor 408. The display device 410 may be a liquid crystal display (LCD) (e.g., active matrix, passive matrix and the like). Alternatively, the display device 410 may be a monitor such as a monochrome display, color graphics adapter (CGA) display, enhanced graphics adapter (EGA) display, variable-graphics-array (VGA) display, super VGA display, cathode ray tube (CRT), and the like. The display device may also correspond to a plasma display or a display implemented with electronic inks.
The display device 410 is generally configured to display a graphical user interface (GUI) that provides an easy to use interface between a user of the computer system and the operating system or application running thereon. Generally speaking, the GUI represents programs, files and operational options with graphical images. The graphical images may include windows, fields, dialog boxes, menus, icons, buttons, cursors, scroll bars, etc. Such images may be arranged in predefined layouts, or may be created dynamically to serve the specific actions being taken by a user. During operation, the user can select and activate various graphical images in order to initiate functions and tasks associated therewith. By way of example, a user may select a button that opens, closes, minimizes, or maximizes a window, or an icon that launches a particular program. The GUI can additionally or alternatively display information, such as non interactive text and graphics, for the user on the display device 410.
The computer system 400 also includes a tag scanning input device 402 that is operatively coupled to the processor 408. The tag scanning input device 402 is configured to transfer data from the outside world into the computer system 400. The input device 402 is used to scan unique machine-readable tag 404. The unique machine-readable tag 404 may be a barcode sticker, a high-frequency (HF) radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, an ultra-high-frequency (UHF) RFID tag, or any other tag or the like that serves as a unique identifier for a logical inspection point. The scanning of the tag may be done by a corresponding tag scanning input device 402 either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to read the corresponding tag, whether by way of visual identification, radio frequency identification, or the like, and store a record of the scanning operation. Various other techniques of choosing the type of unique machine-readable tag and the scanning of it are within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
The computer system 400 also includes a media sample input device 406 that is operatively coupled to the processor 408. The media sample input device 406 is configured to transfer data from the outside world into the computer system 400. The input device 406 is used to capture a media sample and may include cameras of any sort, video camcorders with audio input, video camcorders without audio input, infrared imagers, ultrasonic imagers, or any other type of mechanical, chemical or electromagnetic imager that can obtain visual media. This visual media could be a view of an inspected component 403. The taking of a media sample may be done by media sample input device 406 either embedded in the inspector's handheld device, or embodied in a separate dedicated device, implemented in whichever way is necessary to take and store the media sample.
The computer system 400 also includes capabilities for coupling to one or more I/O devices 420. By way of example, the I/O devices 420 may correspond to keyboards, printers, scanners, cameras, speakers, and/or the like. The I/O devices 420 may be integrated with the computer system 400 or they may be separate components (e.g. peripheral devices). In some cases, the I/O devices 420 may be connected to the computer system 400 through wired connections (e.g. cables/ports). In other cases, the I/O devices 420 may be connected to the computer system 400 through wireless connections. By way of example, the data link may correspond to PS/2, USB, IR, RF, Bluetooth or the like.
The memory block 414 may include a tag scanning operational program 416, which may be part of the operating system or a separate application. The tag scanning operational program 416 generally includes a set of instructions that recognizes the occurrence of a tag scan operation on unique machine-readable tag 404 and informs one or more software agents of the presence of unique machine-readable tag 404 and/or what action(s) to take in response to the unique machine-readable tag 404.
The memory block 414 may also include a media sample capturing program 418, which may be part of the operating system or a separate application. The media sample capturing program 418 generally includes a set of instructions that recognizes the occurrence of a media sample capture operation on the view of inspected component 403 and informs one or more software agents of media obtained and/or what action(s) to take in response to the media obtained.
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Not shown in
Inspector 604 is more specifically in the process of using industrial inspection handheld device 500, even more specifically embedded RFID reader 502, to scan RFID tag 218 via radio frequency communication channel 602. Since inspector 604 is within proximity of the inspected component, the welding of joint 212, which also serves as a logical inspection point for this inspection, he is able to successfully scan the RFID tag 218 because it is within the range of radio frequency communication channel 602.
Inspector 605 is more specifically in the process of using industrial inspection handheld device 500, even more specifically embedded digital camera 504 of
The diagram of the inspection system shown in
The illustration shown in
Some embodiments of the present invention may contain a correlation engine and an alerting engine for correlating and alerting on patterns of behavior that may indicate potential patterns of improper inspection behavior. The correlation engine correlates any subset of inspection data segmented as inspection events, with other inspection data, as well as data coming from numerous other sources, including data from sensors and from third-party systems, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,382,244, filed on Oct. 4, 2007 issued on Jun. 3, 2008, and incorporated by reference in its entirety herein. An alerting engine generates one or more alerts and performs one or more actions based on the correlation performed by the correlation engine.
While the methods disclosed herein have been described and shown with reference to particular operations performed in a particular order, it will be understood that these operations may be combined, sub-divided, or re-ordered to form equivalent methods without departing from the teachings of the present invention. Accordingly, unless specifically indicated herein, the order and grouping of the operations is not a limitation of the present invention.
While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various other changes in the form and details may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
This application claims priority from provisional application Ser. No. 61/122,632, filed on Dec. 15, 2008, and entitled “A system, method and apparatus for inspections and compliance verification of industrial equipment using a handheld device,” the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference herein.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61122632 | Dec 2008 | US |
