U.S. patent application number 12/489313 was filed with the patent office on 2010-06-17 for system and method for carrying out an inspection or maintenance operation with compliance tracking using a handheld device.
Invention is credited to Albert Ho, Daniar Hussain, Adam Ierymenko, Marc Siegel, Christopher Tossing, Jeffrey York.
Application Number | 20100153168 12/489313 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 42239966 |
Filed Date | 2010-06-17 |
United States Patent
Application |
20100153168 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
York; Jeffrey ; et
al. |
June 17, 2010 |
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT AN INSPECTION OR MAINTENANCE
OPERATION WITH COMPLIANCE TRACKING USING A HANDHELD DEVICE
Abstract
The present invention is a system and method for inspections and
compliance verification of industrial equipment using a handheld
device. An inspector first segments an inspected component into
logical inspection points. The inspector then scans a unique
machine-readable tag, such as an RFID tag, with a handheld device
at each logical inspection point. The inspector then takes a media
sample, such as a digital photograph, of the physical component
referred to by each corresponding logical inspection point. Then
the inspector associates the media samples with the corresponding
scan of the unique machine-readable tag. For each of the actions
the inspector carries out on the handheld device, a timestamp is
added that represents evidence of a date and a time of physical
visitation to the associated logical inspection point. The
inspector may then annotate the media samples in such ways that
substantiate inspector statements of problems with inspected
components found during inspection.
Inventors: |
York; Jeffrey; (San Ramon,
CA) ; Siegel; Marc; (Dedham, MA) ; Ho;
Albert; (Westford, MA) ; Tossing; Christopher;
(Waltham, MA) ; Ierymenko; Adam; (Jamaica Plain,
MA) ; Hussain; Daniar; (Cambridge, MA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
AMERICAN PIONEER VENTURES;ATTN: DANIAR HUSSAIN
845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
New York
NY
10022
US
|
Family ID: |
42239966 |
Appl. No.: |
12/489313 |
Filed: |
June 22, 2009 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
61122632 |
Dec 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/7.36 ;
340/10.1; 701/469; 705/28 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/0637 20130101;
Y02P 80/20 20151101; G06Q 10/087 20130101; G06Q 10/103 20130101;
G06Q 30/018 20130101; Y02P 80/21 20151101; G06F 3/04883
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/9 ; 705/8;
705/7; 701/213; 705/28; 340/10.1 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 10/00 20060101
G06Q010/00; G01C 21/00 20060101 G01C021/00; H04Q 5/22 20060101
H04Q005/22 |
Claims
1. A method for ensuring compliance of industrial inspection,
comprising the steps of: segmenting one or more inspected
components into one or more logical inspection points; scanning one
or more unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection
point; taking one or more media samples of the inspected component
at each logical inspection point; and associating the media samples
with the corresponding scan of the unique machine-readable tag,
wherein 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.
2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: declaring
sub-optimal conditions of the unique machine-readable tags at each
logical inspection point, substantiated by corresponding media
samples, if condition warrants such declaration.
3. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: annotating
the media samples in such ways that substantiate inspector
statements of problems with inspected components found during
inspection.
4. The method as recited in claim 3, further comprising:
substantiating inspector statements of problems with inspected
components by quoting standards from a standards document.
5. The method of claim 3, further comprising: generating a new work
order item for any logical inspection point having a problem found
during inspection.
6. The method as recited in claim 3, further comprising: generating
a problem reminder that requires an inspector to revisit any
problem found during an inspection in a future inspection until the
problem is fixed.
7. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: annotating
the media samples in such ways that substantiate inspector
statements of any inspected components passing inspection.
8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the scanning of one or
more unique machine-readable tags and the taking of the media
samples at each logical inspection point is done by a handheld
device.
9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the unique
machine-readable tags 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.
10. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique
machine-readable tag a unique global positioning system (GPS)
location.
11. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique
machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an inspector
performing the inspection.
12. An industrial inspection compliance system, comprising: one or
more physical components marked to be inspected; one or more
logical inspection points segmented from the physical components,
having at least one unique machine-readable tag at each logical
inspection point; one or more scanning devices which can read the
unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection point; and
one or more media input devices which can capture media samples of
inspected physical components at each logical inspection point.
13. The system as described in claim 12, wherein the scanning
device and the media input device are parts of the same physical
device.
14. The system as described in claim 12, wherein the scanning
device and the media input device are connected via one or more
electrical interconnects.
15. The system as described in claim 12, wherein the scanning
device and the media input device are connected via one or more
wired or wireless networks.
16. The system as described in claim 12, wherein the scanning
device and the media input device are logically connected via one
or more remote databases which are accessible to and shared by both
devices.
17. The system as described in claim 12, further comprising a data
storage area for storing information representing segmentation of
physical components as logical inspection points.
18. The system as described in claim 12, further comprising a data
storage area for storing information representing each scan
obtained by the scanning device, wherein each record comprises a
timestamp of each scan, and a unique identifier of the scanned
machine-readable tag.
19. The system as described in claim 12, further comprising a data
storage area for storing information representing the media samples
obtained by the media input device, wherein each record comprises a
timestamp of the taking of the corresponding media sample, and the
media sample itself.
20. The system as described in claim 18, wherein each record
further comprises associations with any media samples obtained by
the media input device.
21. The system as described in claim 19, wherein each record
further comprises associations with any scans obtained by the
scanning device.
22. The system as described in claim 12, further comprising a data
storage area for storing all versions of all components that have
ever been inspected by the system.
23. The system as described in claim 12, further comprising a data
storage area for associating with the media sample and the scan of
the unique machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an
inspector performing the inspection.
24. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for declaring sub-optimal conditions of the unique machine-readable
tags at each logical inspection point, substantiated by
corresponding media samples, if condition warrants such
declaration.
25. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for annotating the media samples in such ways that substantiate
inspector statements of problems with inspected components found
during inspection.
26. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for substantiating inspector statements of problems with inspected
components by quoting standards from a standards document.
27. The system of claim 12, further comprising: means for
generating a new work order item for any logical inspection point
having a problem found during inspection.
28. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for generating a problem reminder that requires an inspector to
revisit any problem found during an inspection in a future
inspection until the problem is fixed.
29. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for annotating the media samples in such ways that substantiate
inspector statements of any inspected components passing
inspection.
30. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique
machine-readable tag a unique global positioning system (GPS)
location.
31. The system as recited in claim 12, further comprising: means
for associating with the media sample and the scan of the unique
machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an inspector
performing the inspection.
32. An industrial inspection compliance system, comprising: one or
more physical components marked to be inspected; one or more
logical inspection points segmented from the physical components,
having one or more unique machine-readable tags at each logical
inspection point; one or more scanning devices which can read the
unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection point; one
or more media input devices which can capture media samples of
inspected physical components at each logical inspection point; a
data storage area for storing information representing segmentation
of physical components as logical inspection points; a data storage
area for storing information representing each scan obtained by the
scanning device, wherein each record comprises a timestamp of each
scan, a unique identifier of the scanned machine-readable tag, and
associations with any scans obtained by the scanning device; and a
data storage area for storing information representing the media
samples obtained by the media input device, wherein each record
comprises a timestamp of the taking of the corresponding media
sample, the media sample itself, and associations with any media
samples obtained by the media input device.
Description
REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] 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.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 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.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] 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.
[0004] 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.
[0005] 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.
[0006] 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.
[0007] 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.
[0008] 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.
[0009] 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.
[0010] 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.
[0011] 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."
[0012] 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.
[0013] 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.
[0014] 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.
[0015] 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.
[0016] 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.
[0017] 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.
[0018] It is against this background that various embodiments of
the present invention were developed.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0019] The present invention is a method and a system for
inspections and compliance verification of industrial equipment
using a handheld device.
[0020] 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.
[0021] 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.
[0022] 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.
[0023] 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.
[0024] Another embodiment of the present invention involves
substantiating inspector statements of problems with inspected
components by quoting standards from a standards document.
[0025] Another embodiment of the present invention involves
generating a new work order item for any logical inspection point
having a problem found during inspection.
[0026] 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.
[0027] 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.
[0028] 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.
[0029] 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.
[0030] 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.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0031] 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:
[0032] FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a method for ensuring compliance of
industrial inspections, in accordance with one embodiment of the
present invention;
[0033] FIG. 2 is an illustration of an illustrative inspection
component, the mast section of a tower crane, which is segmented
into logical inspection points, in accordance with another
embodiment of the present invention;
[0034] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method of ensuring compliance of
industrial inspections, detailing the flow of usage of the software
on a handheld device, in accordance with yet another embodiment of
the present invention;
[0035] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a system, in accordance with
yet another embodiment of the present invention;
[0036] FIG. 5 is an illustration of a multi-functional handheld
device, in which some of the software and hardware components of
the system reside, in accordance with yet another embodiment of the
present invention;
[0037] FIG. 6 is an illustration of inspectors in physical
proximity to an inspection component, carrying out an inspection
with handheld devices, in accordance with yet another embodiment of
the present invention;
[0038] FIG. 7 is a set of diagrams of illustrative user interfaces
in an inspection system installed on different handheld devices, in
accordance with multiple embodiments of the present invention;
[0039] FIG. 8 is a diagram of an illustrative user interface of an
inspection system, in accordance with another yet embodiment of the
present invention; and
[0040] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an illustrative application of
the present invention for ensuring proper inspection of wind
turbines and other renewable energy systems, according to yet
another embodiment of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0041] 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.RTM., the Psion Teklogix Workabout
Pro.RTM., the Motorola MC-75.RTM., 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.
[0042] These and other aspects of the invention are discussed below
with reference to FIGS. 1-8. However, those skilled in the art will
readily appreciate that the detailed description given herein with
respect to these figures is for explanatory purposes as the
invention extends beyond these limited embodiments.
[0043] FIG. 1 is a flowchart diagram of a method 150 for ensuring
compliance of industrial inspections, in accordance with one
embodiment of the present invention. This inspection method 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. This method generally begins at block
100 where an inspector would inspect some industrial component
within physical viewable proximity. The component mentioned may
include an article or machine, or groups of articles or machines,
which are marked to be inspected against prevailing safety or
security standards. This embodiment of the invention requires an
inspector to be within physical viewable proximity from the
inspected component in order to help ensure that the inspector has
actually visited the component. This requirement may be enforced by
the fact that the inspector will be unable to perform the
operations on the handheld device to carry out this method if he is
not within physical viewable proximity of the industrial component
to be inspected. This method assumes that the physical component
has already been logically separated into one or more logical
inspection points as shown in FIG. 2, which will be described in
more detail later. This method also assumes that the physical
component has already been tagged with unique machine-readable tags
at each logical inspection point.
[0044] 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.
[0045] 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.
[0046] 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.
[0047] 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.
[0048] 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.
[0049] 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.
[0050] 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.
[0051] 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.
[0052] 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.
[0053] 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.
[0054] FIG. 2 is an illustration of an illustrative inspection
component, the mast section of a tower crane 200, which is
segmented into logical inspection points, in accordance with
another embodiment of the present invention. The diagram serves as
an example of a possible industrial component that must be
inspected against safety or security standards, such as those of
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). Items 202, 204,
206, 208, 210, 212, 214 and 216 are welded joints on this tower
crane mast section, which in this case are the logical inspection
points for this physical inspected component. A logical inspection
point may include any physical sub-component of any physical
inspected component of the article or machine to be inspected, even
of the physical article/machine itself, or any non-physical aspect
of inspection that can somehow be mapped to a physical component or
sub-component of the inspected article/machine. Logical inspection
points may be defined by the inspector before or during an
inspection, whereby each physical article or machine that is to be
inspected has at least one logical inspection point. For example,
if the tower crane mast section 200 is to be considered the
inspected physical article, the inspector may choose to define each
of the eight welded joints 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214 and
216 as logical inspection points. In this case, each of those items
refers directly to a physical weld job that needs to be inspected.
Each logical inspection point will have one or more associated
unique machine readable tags, such as RFID tag 218. For simplicity
of illustration, only one unique machine readable tag 218 is shown,
even though each logical inspection point may have one or more
unique machine readable tags associated with it. Non-physical
logical inspection points for mast section 200 may include
requiring that joints 202, 204, 206 and 216 have the same
horizontal height in order to maintain balance, requiring that
those same joints form a near-perfect square in a top-down view, or
any other inspection goals or the like.
[0055] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method 300 of ensuring compliance
of industrial inspections, detailing the flow of usage of the
software on a handheld device, in accordance with yet another
embodiment of the present invention. This inspection software 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. This method generally begins at block
301, where an inspector would begin inspection of some industrial
component within physical viewable proximity. Block 302 designates
the fact that the industrial inspection cannot be completed unless
the required scanning of each machine readable tag and an
associated media sample capture operation are properly performed,
or a properly documented reason is provided providing an
explanation as to why a particular operation was skipped.
[0056] 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.
[0057] 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).
[0058] 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.
[0059] 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.
[0060] 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.
[0061] 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.
[0062] 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 FIG. 1,
associating the media sample with a corresponding scan of a unique
machine-readable tag or of a logical inspection point in the system
as described in relation to block 112 of FIG. 1, and editing the
media sample as described above. Editing the media sample includes
the actions of cropping the media sample, making annotations on the
media sample as described in relation to blocks 114 and 116 of FIG.
1, or any other action that can be done on a media sample or the
like.
[0063] 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.
[0064] 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.
[0065] 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.
[0066] 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.
[0067] 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.
[0068] 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.
[0069] Returning to FIG. 3, if a determination is made that the
selected component has already been inspected, industrial
inspection method 300 guides the inspector to a component
inspection screen that shows filled-in data fields of the
inspection, or may contain buttons, links or other objects that
allow the inspector to navigate through his previous inspection. At
this point, the software may or may not allow the inspector to edit
or continue his previous inspection of the selected component.
[0070] Following block 312, industrial inspection method 300,
proceeds back to block 304, representing the main screen, where the
process continues as described above.
[0071] 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.
[0072] 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.
[0073] 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.
[0074] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of storing all versions of all components that have ever been
inspected by the system.
[0075] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of associating with the media sample and the scan of the
unique machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an
inspector performing the inspection.
[0076] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of substantiating inspector statements of problems with
inspected components by quoting standards from a standards
document.
[0077] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of generating a new work order item for any logical inspection
point having a problem found during inspection.
[0078] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of generating a problem reminder that requires an inspector to
revisit any problem found during an inspection in a future
inspection until the problem is fixed.
[0079] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of associating with the media sample and the scan of the
unique machine-readable tag a unique global positioning system
(GPS) location.
[0080] In one embodiment of the present invention, not shown in
FIG. 3, the industrial inspection method 300 includes an additional
step of associating with the media sample and the scan of the
unique machine-readable tag a unique user-identification of an
inspector performing the inspection.
[0081] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary computer system
400, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
The computer system 400 may correspond to a personal computer
system, such as a desktops, laptops, tablets or handheld computer.
The computer system may also correspond to a computing device, such
as a cell phone, PDA, dedicated media player, consumer electronic
device, and the like.
[0082] The exemplary computer system 400 shown in FIG. 4 includes a
processor 408 configured to execute instructions and to carry out
operations associated with the computer system 400. For example,
using instructions retrieved from memory 414, the processor 408 may
control the reception and manipulation of input and output data
between components of the computing system 400. The processor 408
can be implemented on a single-chip, multiple chips or multiple
electrical components. For example, various architectures can be
used for the processor 408, including dedicated or embedded
processor, single purpose processor, controller, ASIC, and so
forth.
[0083] 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.RTM. OS,
Google Android.RTM. OS, DOS, UNIX, Linux, Palm.RTM. OS, Windows,
Windows Mobile.RTM., Windows CE.RTM., 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.
[0084] 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.
[0085] 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.
[0086] 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.
[0087] 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.
[0088] 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.
[0089] 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.
[0090] 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.
[0091] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also include a data storage area for storing all versions of all
components that have ever been inspected by the system.
[0092] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also a data storage area for associating with the media sample and
the scan of the unique machine-readable tag a unique
user-identification of an inspector performing the inspection.
[0093] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to declare sub-optimal conditions of the
unique machine-readable tags at each logical inspection point,
substantiated by corresponding media samples, if condition warrants
such declaration.
[0094] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to annotate the media samples in such ways
that substantiate inspector statements of problems with inspected
components found during inspection.
[0095] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to substantiate inspector statements of
problems with inspected components by quoting standards from a
standards document.
[0096] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to generate a new work order item for any
logical inspection point having a problem found during
inspection.
[0097] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow an inspector to generate a problem reminder that
requires the inspector to revisit any problem found during an
inspection in a future inspection until the problem is fixed.
[0098] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to annotating the media samples in such
ways that substantiate inspector statements of any inspected
components passing inspection.
[0099] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to associate with the media sample and the
scan of the unique machine-readable tag a unique global positioning
system (GPS) location via an associated GPS device (not shown).
[0100] Not shown in FIG. 4, in one embodiment, the system 400 may
also allow the inspector to associate with the media sample and the
scan of the unique machine-readable tag a unique
user-identification of the inspector performing the inspection.
[0101] FIG. 5 is an illustration 550 of a multi-functional handheld
device 500, in which some of the software and hardware components
of the system reside, in accordance with yet another embodiment of
the present invention. The handheld device 500 has a built-in
display device 506, which corresponds to the display device 410
described in FIG. 4. The handheld device 500 also has a keyboard
508, which corresponds to I/O device 420 described in FIG. 4. The
handheld device 500 also has an RFID scanner 502, which corresponds
to the tag scanning input device 402 described in FIG. 4. Lastly,
the handheld device 500 has a digital camera 504, which corresponds
to the media sample input device 406 described in FIG. 4. The
handheld device 500 presented is but one of many possible
illustrative embodiments of the handheld device of the present
invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that
any other configuration of components that make up the handheld
device 500, as well as any possible extensions by other hardware
components, are all within the spirit and scope of the present
invention.
[0102] FIG. 6 is an illustration of inspectors in physical
proximity to an inspection component 200, carrying out an
inspection with handheld devices, in accordance with yet another
embodiment of the present invention. The inspectors 604 and 605 are
standing around article 200, which in this case is the mast section
of a tower crane as shown earlier in FIG. 2. Inspector 604 is in
the process of inspecting the welding of joint 212 of the mast
section, while inspector 605 is in the process of inspecting the
welding of joint 208 of the mast section. They are both using
industrial inspection handheld device 500, as presented in detail
in FIG. 5.
[0103] 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.
[0104] Inspector 605 is more specifically in the process of using
industrial inspection handheld device 500, even more specifically
embedded digital camera 504 of FIG. 5, to take a photograph of a
view 606 of welded joint 208 of tower crane mast section 200.
Welded joint 208 in this case plays the role of both the inspected
component and the logical inspection point.
[0105] The diagram of the inspection system shown in FIG. 6 is but
one of many possible illustrative embodiments of the usage of the
present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate that any other configuration, and representation
thereof, of a similar system in use, as well as any possible
extensions to the system, are all within the spirit and scope of
the present invention.
[0106] FIG. 7 is a set of diagrams 700 of illustrative user
interfaces in an inspection system installed on different handheld
devices, in accordance with multiple embodiments of the present
invention. User interfaces 702, 704 and 706 represent three
possible embodiments of a user interface deployed on handheld
devices for taking a media sample and editing it. User interfaces
702 and 704 are deployed on a Windows Mobile.RTM. device while user
interface 706 is deployed on an Apple iPhone.RTM.. User interface
702 represents one possible UI design in which tabularized pages
allow the inspector to jump between sequential stages of the
inspection process. User interfaces 704 and 706 both represent a
possible UI design in which the inspector is presented with
iconographic buttons corresponding to the process steps of taking a
media sample and editing it. The diagrams presented in FIG. 7 are
but some of many possible illustrative embodiments of the present
invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that
any other configuration of objects in a user interface, on any
other handheld device, as well as any possible extensions to the
set of functions presented in the user interfaces of FIG. 7, are
all within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
[0107] FIG. 8 is a diagram of an illustrative user interface 800 in
an inspection system, in accordance with another embodiment of the
present invention. It consists of an image box 802 which is used to
display an image along with overlaid objects, and a button group
806 that contains iconographic buttons for each function that the
inspector can execute during the process of taking and editing a
media sample. For example, if button 804 is pressed, the software
activates the handheld device's digital camera and places the
captured image in image box 802. Other such functions that can be
found in button group 806 include undo, redo, zoom in, zoom out,
delete, annotate with circle, annotate with rectangle, annotate
with line, choose color, and any other function of the like. The
illustrative user interface 800 is but one of many possible
illustrative embodiments of the present invention. One of ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate that any other configuration of
objects in a user interface, as well as any possible extensions to
the set of functions presented in the user interface 800, are all
within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
[0108] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an inspector carrying out an
inspection of wind turbine 902 and wind turbine 904 in accordance
with yet another embodiment of the present invention. The inspector
906 is standing next to the tower and foundation sections of wind
turbine 904. The inspector 906 is using industrial inspection
handheld device 908 (shown in detail in FIG. 5). Inspector 906 is
more specifically in the process of using industrial inspection
handheld device 908, even more specifically having an embedded RFID
reader, to scan RFID tag 912 on tower section of wind turbine 904,
via radio frequency communication channel 910. Since inspector 906
is within proximity of the inspected component, he is able to
successfully scan the RFID tag 912 because it is within the range
of radio frequency communication channel 910.
[0109] The illustration shown in FIG. 9 is but one of many possible
illustrative embodiments of the usage of the present invention. One
of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that many possible
uses of the present invention are all within the spirit and scope
of the present invention, including, but not limited to, 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.
[0110] 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.
[0111] 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.
[0112] 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.
* * * * *