JP2010029926A - Quality forecasting method - Google Patents

Quality forecasting method Download PDF

Info

Publication number
JP2010029926A
JP2010029926A JP2008197013A JP2008197013A JP2010029926A JP 2010029926 A JP2010029926 A JP 2010029926A JP 2008197013 A JP2008197013 A JP 2008197013A JP 2008197013 A JP2008197013 A JP 2008197013A JP 2010029926 A JP2010029926 A JP 2010029926A
Authority
JP
Japan
Prior art keywords
defective
quality
cast
casting
inspection
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Granted
Application number
JP2008197013A
Other languages
Japanese (ja)
Other versions
JP5232561B2 (en
Inventor
Yoshimichi Asai
Yoshitada Iwane
Kenichi Katahira
Akihito Machida
Kentaro Suzuki
Kanji Tone
貫司 利根
義忠 岩根
良道 浅井
賢一 片平
明仁 町田
健太郎 鈴木
Original Assignee
Honda Motor Co Ltd
本田技研工業株式会社
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Honda Motor Co Ltd, 本田技研工業株式会社 filed Critical Honda Motor Co Ltd
Priority to JP2008197013A priority Critical patent/JP5232561B2/en
Publication of JP2010029926A publication Critical patent/JP2010029926A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of JP5232561B2 publication Critical patent/JP5232561B2/en
Expired - Fee Related legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a quality inspection method capable of efficiently performing inspection based on the quality forecasting of cast articles, and improving the quality of the cast articles. <P>SOLUTION: Which of the cast articles belong whether non-defective groups, defective groups or groups whether defective or non-defective is indefinite is forecast (STEPS 66, 67, 69) from casting conditions. The defective and non-defective conditions of the cast articles forecast to belong to the non-defective group and the defective or non-defective is indefinite is inspected (STEP 70). The cast articles forecast to belong to the defective article group and the cast articles decided to be defective by the inspection are subjected to an improvement of the faulty point (STEP 72). Further, whether the cast article improved in the faulty point is again decided (STEP 73). <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2010,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a quality inspection method for inspecting the quality of a cast product based on the quality prediction of the cast product by die casting.

  Conventionally, as a product pass / fail judgment method for automatically judging product pass / fail in a molding machine such as a die casting machine, the measured values of a plurality of predetermined operating condition monitor items during a predetermined shot number of test shots are used. Multivariate analysis of the correlation between each operating condition monitor item and the actual measured product weight from the actual value of the measured product weight and the actual value of each operating condition monitor item and the actual measured product weight The product weight is predicted for each shot based on the actual value of each operation condition monitor item using the correlation equation during the process of obtaining the regression equation by the multiple regression analysis of the method and continuous automatic operation, and the prediction result is And a step of determining the quality of a product based on whether it is within the range of the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the product weight (see Patent Document 1).

According to such a product pass / fail determination method, pass / fail determination is performed using the product weight predicted from the actual measured value of each operation condition monitor item as the reference for pass / fail determination without taking in the actual measured product weight during continuous operation.
Japanese Patent No. 2567968

  However, although the product weight can be one factor for determining the quality of the product, even if the product weight is within the predetermined upper and lower limits, the product is not necessarily good. Absent.

  In addition, since it is unclear how reliable the judgment accuracy is, it is necessary to inspect casting defects for all castings.

  In view of the above circumstances, an object of the present invention is to provide a quality inspection method that can efficiently inspect and improve the quality of a cast product based on the quality prediction of the cast product. To do.

  In order to achieve the above object, a quality inspection method according to a first aspect of the present invention is a quality inspection method for inspecting the quality of a cast product based on the quality prediction of the cast product by die-casting. The quality prediction process of predicting which of the non-defective product group, the defective product group, and the quality unknown group belongs to, and the casting product predicted to belong to the good product group and the quality unknown group in the quality prediction step Improving the defect location for the inspection process for inspecting pass / fail, the cast product predicted to belong to the defective product group in the pass / fail prediction process, and the cast product determined to be defective in the inspection process It is characterized by comprising a processing step and a re-inspection step for re-determining the quality of the cast product whose defective portion has been improved in the improvement processing step.

  According to the quality inspection method of the first invention, the casting product is predicted to belong to a good product group, a defective product group, or an unacceptable group, and based on the prediction result, the quality inspection and the defective part are as follows. Improvement processing is performed.

  That is, for the cast products predicted to belong to the non-defective product group and the unacceptable product group, a quality inspection is performed to determine whether any defective products are included in these groups. Then, as a result of the inspection, the defective portion is improved only for the cast product determined to be defective.

  On the other hand, most of the cast products predicted to belong to the defective product group are defective products, and some of them are good products. However, it is troublesome and time-consuming to extract a good product from these. Therefore, for the castings that are predicted to belong to the defective product group, the defective portion is improved without performing quality inspection.

  In this way, casting products are classified into three groups, and quality inspection is performed according to which group they belong to, or the necessary inspection can be efficiently performed by not actively performing quality inspection. . Furthermore, it is possible to improve defective parts without omission for defective products that can be included in any group, and to improve the quality of cast products.

  The quality inspection method of the second invention is the quality inspection method of the first invention, wherein the quality prediction step includes a probability difference (P1) between a probability (P1) that the cast product is a non-defective product and a probability (P2) that the casting product is a defective product. Based on -P2), the casting product is predicted to belong to a non-defective product group, a defective product group, or a group whose quality is unknown.

  According to the quality inspection method of the second invention, if there is a bias in either the probability that the casting is a good product (P1) or the probability that it is a defective product (P2), the cast product is a good product or a defective product. It will be predictable whether there is. For example, if P1 >> P2, it can be predicted that the product is non-defective, and if P1 << P2, it can be predicted that the product is defective. On the other hand, even if there is a bias, if the difference is small, the accuracy of prediction can be reduced. As described above, the quality prediction is performed on the basis of the probability difference (P1−P2) between the probability (P1) that the casting is a non-defective product and the probability (P2) that the casting is a defective product. In addition to being able to classify into a defective product group with a certain prediction accuracy, if the prediction accuracy is not ensured, it can be classified into a group whose quality is unknown as a gray zone. Thereby, the reliability of prediction accuracy can be ensured, and efficient inspection according to these classifications becomes possible.

  As one embodiment of the present invention, a quality determination system for executing a casting quality prediction method and a casting quality inspection method using the prediction method will be described with reference to FIGS.

  First, an overall configuration will be described with reference to FIG.

  As shown in FIG. 1, the quality determination system according to the present embodiment acquires a data collection device 3 that collects data signals output from various sensors 2 attached to the casting machine 1 and the data collection device 3. A casting condition database 4 for storing data relating to various casting conditions to be performed, an input unit 5 configured to be able to input quality inspection data, and a quality inspection database 6 for storing quality inspection data input from the input unit 5 The quality prediction processing unit 10 that performs processing for quality prediction of the cast product from these databases 4 and 6 and the quality inspection processing that performs processing related to the quality inspection of the cast product based on the processing by the quality prediction processing unit 10 Unit 20 and speaker 7 that issues an alarm according to the processing result of quality inspection processing unit 20.

  The casting machine 1 is a die casting machine that casts a light metal material such as aluminum. The various sensors 2 are, for example, a temperature sensor 2a made of a thermocouple provided at each part of the mold of the casting machine 1, a displacement meter 2b attached to the mold or piston, a pressure sensor 2c for measuring the casting pressure, and the like.

  The data collection device 3 is made up of a programmable logic controller (PLC), and stores and holds data signals output from the various sensors 2 together with management information such as casting product number information.

  The casting condition database 4 converts a data signal stored and held in the data collection device 3 into digital data via an A / D converter (not shown) and the like, and processes the digital data or the digital data according to a predetermined algorithm. Data obtained by applying is stored and held as casting conditions. The casting conditions stored in the casting condition database include, for example, injection stroke, injection speed, high speed section, high speed section speed, low speed section, low speed section speed, low speed pressurization time, casting pressure, final mold clamping force, and the like. . The processing algorithm for digital data is, for example, a waveform digitization algorithm that summarizes waveform data such as collected injection speed by interval and calculates and stores basic statistics such as average and standard deviation. Data is digitized for statistical processing.

  The input unit 5 includes input means such as a keyboard, and quality inspection data obtained as a result of inspecting a cast product by an operator is manually input. The quality inspection data is obtained by inspecting and evaluating a cast product from various viewpoints, and includes, for example, inspection results such as presence / absence of a cast hole by pressure inspection, visual surface inspection, and weight inspection of the cast product. Note that the input unit 5 may be configured as an interface and the quality inspection data may be automatically captured.

  The quality inspection database 6 converts the quality inspection data of the cast product input from the input unit 5 into digital data via an A / D converter (not shown) and stores and holds it.

  The quality prediction processing unit 10 is a processing unit that creates a model that defines the relationship between casting conditions and quality inspection data from past casting conditions and quality inspection data. The model prediction unit 10 calculates the prediction accuracy. Unit 12 and determination threshold setting unit 13.

  The model construction unit 11 constructs a multiple regression model relating to the correlation between the plurality of casting conditions stored and held in the casting condition database 4 and the quality inspection data stored and held in the quality inspection database 6.

  The prediction accuracy calculation unit 12 performs multiple regression on the degree of coincidence between the prediction determination result based on the multiple regression model constructed by the model construction unit 11 and the actual good product determination result based on the quality inspection data stored and held in the quality inspection database 6. Calculated as the prediction accuracy of the model.

  The determination threshold value setting unit 13 sets a determination threshold value T for determining a cast product as a non-defective product or a defective product based on the multiple regression model so that the prediction accuracy calculated by the prediction accuracy calculation unit 12 is equal to or higher than a predetermined accuracy. Set.

  The quality inspection processing unit 20 is a processing unit that predicts the quality of a cast product according to the model constructed by the quality prediction processing unit 10 when performing a new casting. The quality inspection processing unit 20, the alarm processing unit 22, Is provided.

  According to the multiple regression model in which the quality prediction processing unit 10 constructs and sets the determination threshold T, the pass / fail prediction unit 21 determines that the cast product is a non-defective product group from the casting condition database 4 newly stored in the casting condition database 4. Which of the defective product group and the group whose quality is unknown is predicted.

  The alarm processing unit 22 generates an alarm sound such as a buzzer sound from the speaker 7 when the prediction judgment result of the non-defective product prediction processing unit 21 is predicted as a defective product, and is visually displayed by a display or a lamp (not shown). Perform an alarm.

  In the present embodiment, the databases 4 and 6 and the processing units 11 to 13, 21 and 22 are configured by hardware such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, and these may be configured by common hardware. In addition, some or all of these may be configured by different hardware.

  Next, processing in the quality prediction processing unit 10 will be described with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG.

  First, the quality prediction processing unit 10 reads the quality inspection data stored and held in the quality inspection database 6 for the past N shots in the casting machine 1 (STEP 1), and the casting conditions stored and held in the casting condition database 4 are stored. Read (STEP 2).

  Next, excluded factor information and essential factor information are input to the quality prediction processing unit 10 via the input unit 5 by the operator (STEP 3). Exclusion factor information and essential factor information specify the conditions that should be excluded and the conditions that should be excluded from the characteristics of the casting material, etc., regarding the casting conditions related to the past N shots read from the casting condition database 4. is there.

Further, one or more quality threshold values X are input to the quality prediction processing unit 10 by the operator via the input unit 5 (STEP 4). The quality threshold value X is a quality index for determining whether a cast product is good or defective. For example, regarding the volume of the cast hole in the cast product, the threshold value of the cast hole volume is set to 30 mm 3 .

  Then, the quality prediction processing unit 10 classifies the cast product into a non-defective product and a defective product with respect to the quality inspection data read in STEP 1 according to the input quality threshold value X (STEP 5). As described above, when the casting hole is set to the quality threshold value X, a casting product having a casting hole volume less than the threshold value is regarded as a non-defective product, and a casting product having a threshold value of the threshold value or more is regarded as a defective product.

  Next, the model construction unit 11 of the quality prediction processing unit 10 creates a correlation matrix in which the casting conditions read in STEP 2 are used as explanatory variables and the quality inspection data stratified in STEP 5 is used as an objective variable ( (STEP6).

  And the model construction part 11 performs the multiple collinearity exclusion process which deletes the combination with high correlation of explanatory variables in the correlation formula represented by the correlation matrix produced by STEP6 (STEP10). Details of the multicollinearity exclusion process will be described later with reference to FIG.

  Further, the model construction unit 11 performs outlier removal processing on the explanatory variables that remain without being deleted as a result of the processing in STEP 10 (STEP 20). Details of the outlier removal process will be described later with reference to FIG.

  Next, the model construction unit 11 executes a multiple regression model construction process for constructing a multiple regression model by the stepwise method from the correlation equation represented by the correlation matrix subjected to the processing of STEP 10 and STEP 20 (STEP 30). Details of the multiple regression model construction process will be described later with reference to FIG.

  Next, based on the multiple regression model constructed in STEP 30, the prediction accuracy calculation unit 12 calculates a probability P1 that the cast product is a non-defective product and a probability P2 that the cast product is a defective product from the casting conditions. A prediction accuracy calculation process is performed to calculate the degree of coincidence between the prediction determination result based on this and the actual good product determination result based on the quality inspection data stored and held in the quality inspection database 6 as the prediction accuracy of the multiple regression model (STEP 40). Details of the prediction accuracy calculation process will be described later with reference to FIG.

  Next, the determination threshold value setting unit 13 sets the probability difference | P1− between the probability P1 that the casting is a non-defective product and the probability P2 that is a defective product so that the prediction accuracy calculated in STEP 40 is a predetermined value or more. A determination threshold value setting process for setting a determination threshold value T for P2 | is executed (STEP 50). The details of the determination threshold setting process will be described later with reference to FIG.

  The above is the outline of the processing executed by the quality prediction processing unit 10.

  Next, the details of the multicollinearity elimination processing will be described with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG.

  First, the model construction unit 11 extracts two explanatory variables (factors m and n, where m ≠ n) from among a plurality of explanatory variables, and the correlation coefficient between them is a predetermined value (for example, 0.7 ) It is determined whether or not the above (STEP 11).

  If the correlation coefficient is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value (NO in STEP 11), it is determined that there is no removal factor (STEP 12), and the processing of STEP 11 and subsequent steps is similarly performed for the other two explanatory variable combinations. To do.

  On the other hand, if the correlation coefficient is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (YES in STEP 11), it is determined whether or not the correlation between the factor n and the casting quality is greater than the correlation between the factor m and the casting quality (STEP 13).

  If the correlation between the factor n and the casting quality is larger than the factor m (YES in STEP 13), the factor m having a low correlation with the casting quality is removed (STEP 14).

  On the other hand, if the correlation between the factor n and the casting quality is equal to or less than the factor m (NO in STEP 13), the factor n having a low correlation with the casting quality is removed (STEP 15).

  Next, after removing any of the factors m and n, the processing from STEP 11 onward is repeatedly executed for the other two combinations of explanatory variables.

  The above is the details of the multicollinearity exclusion process. If the factor matches the essential factor information entered in STEP 3, the factor is not removed. If the factor matches the removal factor information, the factor is preferentially removed. The That is, the essential factor information and the removal factor information specified in STEP 3 are preconditions for performing the multicollinearity exclusion process.

  Next, details of the outlier removal processing by the Smirnov-Grubbs test will be described with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG.

  First, the model construction unit 11 extracts a first explanatory variable (factor m = 1) (STEP 21), and determines whether the maximum value or the minimum value of the factor m is an outlier (STEP 22).

Specifically, an outlier is determined by first assuming that the factor m is N, the factor m data is X 1 , X 2 ,..., X N , the sample mean is X ′, and the unbiased variance is U. Then, the Ti value is obtained according to the following equation.

  And the significant point t is calculated | required according to following Formula.

  Here, in Expression (2), α is a significance level.

When T i <t, it is determined that “the maximum (minimum) data is not an outlier”. When T i ≧ t, “out of data, The maximum (minimum) is an outlier. "

  If it is determined that the value is an outlier (YES in STEP 22), the corresponding line of the factor m is deleted (STEP 23), m is incremented, and the next explanatory variable is extracted (STEP 24). On the other hand, if it is determined that the value is not an outlier (NO in STEP 22), m is incremented without any operation for the factor m, and the next explanatory variable is extracted (STEP 24).

  Then, it is determined whether or not the incremented m exceeds the total number of explanatory variables (STEP 25).

  If m exceeds the total number of factors (YES in STEP 25), the outlier removal process is terminated. On the other hand, when m does not exceed the total number of factors (NO in STEP25), the process returns to STEP22 and a series of processes is repeated.

  The above is the details of the outlier removal processing. If the factor matches the essential factor information entered in STEP 3, the factor is not removed. If the factor matches the removal factor information, the factor is preferentially removed. The That is, the essential factor information and removal factor information specified in STEP 3 are preconditions for performing outlier removal processing.

  Next, with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. 5, the detail of the construction process of the multiple regression model by a stepwise method is demonstrated.

  First, the model construction unit 11 obtains a constant term coefficient from the correlation equation represented by the correlation matrix subjected to the processing of STEP 10 and STEP 20, and constructs a constant-only model (STEP 31).

  Next, it is determined whether or not there is a factor that decreases the AIC that is an index of the degree of fit of the model (increases as the degree of fit) by adding among the explanatory variables to the constant-only model (STEP 32). .

  If there is a factor that decreases the AIC by adding (YES in STEP 32), after adding this factor (STEP 33), the processing below STEP 32 is executed for the other factors.

  On the other hand, if there is no factor that increases AIC by adding (NO in STEP 32), it is determined whether there is a factor that decreases AIC factor by deleting (STEP 34).

If there is a factor that AIC decreases by deleting (YES in STEP 34)
) After removing this factor (STEP 35), the processing below STEP 32 is executed for the other factors. Then, when there is no longer any factor that decreases the AIC by deleting (NO in STEP 34), the series of processes is terminated.

  The above is the details of the construction process of the multiple regression model. If the factor matches the essential factor information entered in STEP 3, the factor is not deleted from the model. If the factor matches the removal factor information, the factor is given priority. Deleted. That is, the essential factor information and the removal factor information specified in STEP 3 are preconditions for performing the multiple regression model construction process.

  Next, with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. 6, the detail of the prediction accuracy calculation process by an intersection confirmation method is demonstrated.

  First, the prediction accuracy calculation unit 12 extracts the first explanatory variable (factor n = 1) (STEP 41), and removes n = 1 from all shots N. The variance covariance matrices S1 and S2 are obtained. Calculate (STEP 42).

  Next, the Mahalanobis distance with respect to S1, S2 of n = 1, the probability P1 that the cast product is a non-defective product, and the probability P2 that is a defective product are obtained (STEP 43). Specifically, the Mahalanobis distance is obtained by calculating the square distance of Mahalanobis using the inverse matrix of the variance-covariance matrix. The probabilities P1 and P2 belonging to both groups are calculated based on the fact that the Mahalanobis square distance follows a chi-square distribution of degrees of freedom.

  Next, it is determined whether or not the probability P1 that the cast product is non-defective is greater than the probability P2 that the cast product is defective (STEP 44).

  If the probability P1 is greater than the probability P2 (YES in STEP 44), it is determined that the cast product belongs to the non-defective product group (STEP 44-A), and the prediction determination result is the quality inspection data stratified in STEP 5. It is determined whether or not the result matches the pass / fail judgment result (STEP 45).

  On the other hand, if the probability P1 is less than or equal to the probability P2 (NO in STEP 44), it is determined that the casting belongs to the defective product group (STEP 44-B), and the prediction determination result is a quality inspection stratified in STEP 5. It is determined whether or not it matches the data pass / fail determination result (STEP 45).

  If they match (YES in STEP 45), the success counter is incremented in the success and failure counters (STEP 45-A). On the other hand, if they do not match, the failure number counter is incremented (STEP 45-B).

  Next, it is determined whether or not n exceeds the number of shots (STEP 46), n is incremented until n exceeds the number of shots (STEP 47), and the processing after STEP 42 is repeatedly executed.

  The above is the details of the prediction accuracy calculation process. Thereby, with respect to the number of shots N, the number of successes and the number of failures can be calculated as prediction accuracy.

  Next, the details of the determination threshold value setting process will be described with reference to FIG.

  First, the determination threshold value setting unit 13 obtains the prediction accuracy calculation by the intersection confirmation method (STEP 52) when the determination threshold value T is not provided (when T = 0) (STEP 51).

  Next, when the determination threshold T with respect to the magnitude | P1-P2 | of the probability difference between the probability P1 that the casting is a non-defective product and the probability P2 that is a defective product is 0, the degree of coincidence of the acquired prediction accuracy is 70%. It is determined whether or not the above is satisfied (STEP 53).

  If the degree of match is not 70% or more (NO in STEP 53), the determination threshold T is increased by a predetermined rate (STEP 54). The predetermined ratio to be increased is, for example, several tens of% of the probability difference magnitude | P1-P2 |.

  Next, after the determination threshold T is increased, the processing from STEP 52 onward is repeatedly executed until the degree of match reaches 70% or more (YES in STEP 53).

  The above is the details of the determination threshold value setting process.

  Next, processing in the quality inspection processing unit 20 will be described with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG.

  First, the quality inspection processing unit 20 reads out the casting conditions from the casting condition database when newly casting (STEP 61). Further, the determination threshold value T set in the determination threshold value setting process of STEP 50 is read (STEP 62).

  Then, the quality prediction unit 21 performs the processing of STEPs 42 and 43 according to the multiple regression model constructed in STEP 30 from the casting conditions read out in STEP 1, and the probability P1 that this casting product is non-defective and the probability that it is defective. P2 is calculated (STEP 63). The processing of STEP 63 may be performed by the pass / fail prediction unit 21, but in order to simplify the system configuration, the prediction accuracy calculation unit 12 is given a casting condition to perform calculation processing, and the calculation processing result is quality. It is desirable to return it to the inspection processing unit 20.

  Next, the pass / fail prediction unit 21 determines whether or not the magnitude | P1-P2 | of the probability difference between the probabilities P1 and P2 here is equal to or larger than the determination threshold T read in STEP 62 (STEP 64). .

  If the probability difference is equal to or greater than the determination threshold T (YES in STEP 64), it is determined whether the probability P1 of non-defective product is larger than the probability P2 of defective product (STEP 65).

  Here, when the probability P1 of the non-defective product is larger than the probability P2 of the non-defective product (YES in STEP 65), the probability P1 of the non-defective product and the probability P2 of the defective product are determined on the probability P1 side of the non-defective product. Since a deviation larger than the size defined by the threshold value T has occurred, the cast product is predicted to belong to the good product group (STEP 66).

  On the other hand, when the probability P1 of the non-defective product is not larger than the probability P2 of the defective product (NO in STEP 65), the probability P1 of the non-defective product and the probability P2 of the defective product are on the probability P2 side of the defective product. Since a deviation larger than the size defined by the determination threshold T has occurred, it is predicted that the cast product belongs to the defective product group (STEP 67). In this case, the alarm processing unit 22 outputs a buzzer sound or the like from the speaker 7 to alert the operator, and performs an alarm display or the like indicating that the cast product may belong to a defective product on a display (not shown). (STEP 68).

  Further, if the probability difference is not equal to or greater than the determination threshold T (NO in STEP 64), the magnitude defined by the determination threshold T is one of the probabilities P1 of non-defective products and the probability P2 of defective products. Therefore, it is determined that the cast product belongs to a group whose quality is unknown (STEP 69).

  Next, when the quality of the cast product is predicted by the pass / fail prediction unit 21, the operator performs a pressure test on the cast product predicted to belong to the pass product group and the cast product predicted to belong to the pass / fail group. (STEP 70). The pressure inspection is performed by a pressure inspection device that inspects pressure leakage by introducing air into a sealed case after pre-processing for cutting the surface of the cast product in advance. In this way, the presence or absence of defects such as cast holes and micro holes is inspected.

  When the result of the pressure inspection is a non-defective product (YES in STEP 71), the operator finishes a series of processes on the assumption that the quality of the casting satisfies a predetermined condition, and the cast product Is sent to the main processing step, the assembly step, and the like.

  On the other hand, impregnation processing is performed on all cast products without performing pressure inspection on the cast products predicted to belong to the defective product group in STEP 67 (STEP 72). In the impregnation treatment, for example, an impregnating solution corresponding to the casting material is impregnated in a defective portion such as a casting cavity by a vacuum-pressure impregnation method. Specifically, in the case of an aluminum die cast product, the washed and dried cast product is placed in a treatment tank, and the interior of the treatment tank is evacuated to a predetermined pressure or lower and then impregnated at a predetermined temperature. The liquid is injected, and the impregnating liquid completely covers the casting to be processed, and is processed by applying a predetermined pressure and holding it for about 10 to 15 minutes. By performing such impregnation treatment, pressure resistance, airtightness, corrosion resistance, etc. can be improved, and mechanical strength can be improved.

  Even when the result of the pressure inspection is not determined to be a non-defective product (NO in STEP 71), the impregnation process of STEP 72 is performed on the cast product.

  Then, the pressure inspection is performed again on the cast product subjected to the impregnation treatment (STEP 73). As a result, if it is determined that the product is non-defective (YES in STEP 74), the series of processes is terminated, and the cast product is sent to the main processing step, the assembling step, and the like.

  On the other hand, if it is not determined that the product is non-defective as a result of the final inspection (NO in STEP 74), the series of processing is terminated, and the cast product is discarded as a non-standard product whose quality or the like does not satisfy a predetermined condition.

  The above is the details of the processing in the quality inspection processing unit 20.

  In this embodiment, the quality inspection of the cast product is performed by pressure inspection in STEPs 70 and 73. However, the present invention is not limited to this, and the quality inspection by other inspection methods may be performed. For example, a surface image of a cast product may be captured by a CCD camera or the like, and a defect may be detected from the captured image, or an internal defect may be inspected by spatial discrete data such as X-ray CT data. .

The whole block diagram of the quality determination system in this Embodiment. The flowchart which shows the process in a quality prediction process part. The flowchart which shows a multicollinearity exclusion process. 6 is a flowchart showing outlier removal processing; The flowchart which shows the construction process of a multiple regression model. The flowchart which shows a prediction precision calculation process. The flowchart which shows a determination threshold value setting process. The flowchart which shows the process in a quality inspection process part.

Explanation of symbols

  DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Casting machine, 2 ... Sensor, 3 ... Data collection device, 4 ... Casting condition database, 5 ... Input part, 6 ... Quality inspection database, 7 ... Speaker, 10 ... Quality prediction process part, 11 ... Model construction part, 12 ... Prediction accuracy calculation unit, 13 ... Determination threshold setting unit, 20 ... Quality inspection processing unit, 21 ... Pass / fail prediction unit, 22 ... Alarm processing unit.

Claims (2)

  1. A quality inspection method for inspecting the quality of a cast product based on the quality prediction of the cast product by die casting,
    A quality prediction process for predicting whether the cast product belongs to a non-defective product group, a defective product group, or a group whose quality is unknown from casting conditions,
    An inspection step for inspecting the quality of the cast product predicted to belong to the good product group and the quality unknown group in the quality prediction step;
    An improved processing step for improving a defective portion for a casting product predicted to belong to a defective product group in the pass / fail prediction step and a cast product determined to be a defective product in the inspection step;
    A quality inspection method comprising: a re-inspection step for re-determining the quality of a cast product in which a defective portion is improved in the improvement processing step.
  2. The quality inspection method according to claim 1,
    In the pass / fail prediction step, the cast product is classified into a non-defective product group and a defective product group based on a probability difference (P1-P2) between a probability (P1) that the cast product is non-defective and a probability (P2) that the cast product is defective. And a quality inspection method characterized by predicting which group the quality of which is unknown.
JP2008197013A 2008-07-30 2008-07-30 Quality inspection method Expired - Fee Related JP5232561B2 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
JP2008197013A JP5232561B2 (en) 2008-07-30 2008-07-30 Quality inspection method

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
JP2008197013A JP5232561B2 (en) 2008-07-30 2008-07-30 Quality inspection method

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
JP2010029926A true JP2010029926A (en) 2010-02-12
JP5232561B2 JP5232561B2 (en) 2013-07-10

Family

ID=41735055

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
JP2008197013A Expired - Fee Related JP5232561B2 (en) 2008-07-30 2008-07-30 Quality inspection method

Country Status (1)

Country Link
JP (1) JP5232561B2 (en)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2015029158A1 (en) * 2013-08-28 2015-03-05 株式会社日立製作所 Data conversion device, data conversion method, and data conversion program

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH07318508A (en) * 1994-05-24 1995-12-08 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd Apparatus and method for deciding image
JPH08118443A (en) * 1994-10-27 1996-05-14 Fanuc Ltd Analytical method of influencing primary factor of quality of product and controlling method of molding condition
JPH10113967A (en) * 1996-10-11 1998-05-06 Kobe Steel Ltd Method for automatically deciding quality of molding formed by injecting molding machine
JP2003145262A (en) * 2001-11-12 2003-05-20 Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co Ltd Die-casting system and quality control method of die- casting product
JP2006289773A (en) * 2005-04-11 2006-10-26 Sumitomo Heavy Ind Ltd Device, method and program for monitoring molding machine
JP2007139621A (en) * 2005-11-18 2007-06-07 Omron Corp Determination device, control program of determination device, and recording medium recording control program of determination device

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH07318508A (en) * 1994-05-24 1995-12-08 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd Apparatus and method for deciding image
JPH08118443A (en) * 1994-10-27 1996-05-14 Fanuc Ltd Analytical method of influencing primary factor of quality of product and controlling method of molding condition
JPH10113967A (en) * 1996-10-11 1998-05-06 Kobe Steel Ltd Method for automatically deciding quality of molding formed by injecting molding machine
JP2003145262A (en) * 2001-11-12 2003-05-20 Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co Ltd Die-casting system and quality control method of die- casting product
JP2006289773A (en) * 2005-04-11 2006-10-26 Sumitomo Heavy Ind Ltd Device, method and program for monitoring molding machine
JP2007139621A (en) * 2005-11-18 2007-06-07 Omron Corp Determination device, control program of determination device, and recording medium recording control program of determination device

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2015029158A1 (en) * 2013-08-28 2015-03-05 株式会社日立製作所 Data conversion device, data conversion method, and data conversion program

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
JP5232561B2 (en) 2013-07-10

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
KR940001808B1 (en) Inspection data interpretation system
Sohn et al. Structural health monitoring using statistical process control
US7265662B2 (en) Apparatus and method for inspecting containers
US8015876B2 (en) Method and apparatus for measuring the structural integrity of a safe-life aircraft component
KR101194023B1 (en) Infrared thermal image analyzer
US20120209538A1 (en) Determination of the Remaining Life of a Structural System Based on Acoustic Emission Signals
US20070031024A1 (en) System and method for monitoring and visualizing the output of a production process
JP2018108730A (en) Method and system for x-ray backscatter inspection of additive manufactured parts
An et al. Identification of correlated damage parameters under noise and bias using Bayesian inference
JP5140420B2 (en) System and method for parametric injection molding
JP4588414B2 (en) Internal defect inspection method and apparatus
AU2012201961B2 (en) Methods and systems for monitoring operation of equipment
US20100114502A1 (en) System and method for article monitoring
US20190101908A1 (en) Plant abnormality detection method and system
EP1982301B1 (en) Method of condition monitoring
DE102009019366A1 (en) Methods and systems for predicting fatigue resistance in aluminum castings
EP2682836B1 (en) Method for performing diagnostics of a structure subject to loads and system for implementing said method
JP6294268B2 (en) Abnormality diagnosis device for injection molding machine
JP2005121639A (en) Inspection method, inspection apparatus and diagnostic apparatus for facility
US7502712B2 (en) Preventive defect detection and control process in composite material parts
JP5091604B2 (en) Distribution evaluation method, product manufacturing method, distribution evaluation program, and distribution evaluation system
JP2000259222A (en) Device monitoring and preventive maintenance system
French et al. Identifying biological landmarks using a novel cell measuring image analysis tool: Cell-o-Tape
Zarate et al. Probabilistic prognosis of fatigue crack growth using acoustic emission data
JP2004094631A (en) Operation support device for plant equipment

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
A621 Written request for application examination

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A621

Effective date: 20101126

A977 Report on retrieval

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A971007

Effective date: 20110519

A131 Notification of reasons for refusal

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A131

Effective date: 20121204

A521 Written amendment

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A523

Effective date: 20130129

TRDD Decision of grant or rejection written
A01 Written decision to grant a patent or to grant a registration (utility model)

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A01

Effective date: 20130312

A61 First payment of annual fees (during grant procedure)

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: A61

Effective date: 20130325

R150 Certificate of patent or registration of utility model

Free format text: JAPANESE INTERMEDIATE CODE: R150

FPAY Renewal fee payment (event date is renewal date of database)

Free format text: PAYMENT UNTIL: 20160329

Year of fee payment: 3

LAPS Cancellation because of no payment of annual fees