Gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method. The method comprises the following steps: determining risk evaluation classification indexes of product quality and a single evaluation index included in each risk evaluation classification index; determining a weight of a single evaluation index included in each risk evaluation classification index, and obtaining a weight vector of the single evaluation index of each risk evaluation classification index; determining an evaluation grade of product quality risk evaluation; calculating a membership degree vector of each single evaluation index corresponding to a product quality risk evaluation grade, and constructing an evaluation matrix of risk evaluation classification indexes; calculating an evaluation value of each risk evaluation classification index corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation grade; calculating a comprehensive evaluation value of the gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation grade; and selecting the maximum value of the elements in the comprehensive evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation grade as the gas appliance product quality risk evaluation grade. The method is accurate, quantitative and effective.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a method for evaluating indoor gas safety, and particularly to a method for evaluating the quality risk of gas appliance products. Background Art

[0002] The quality of gas appliance products involves processes such as design, production, and use. At the design level, it involves heat load, thermal efficiency, pollutant emissions, etc. during the use of gas appliances. The production process involves production processes and quality control of products. Risk sources that may affect product quality may occur in different links. However, currently, the gas appliance industry temporarily lacks a comprehensive and effective method for evaluating the quality risk of gas appliance products, and it is difficult to judge whether there are risks in product quality and the severity of the risk level based on the risk sources in each link. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a more scientific, accurate, quantitative, and effective method for evaluating the quality risk of gas appliance products.

[0004] A method for evaluating the quality risk of gas appliance products according to the present invention includes the following steps:

[0005] Step 1: Determine the risk evaluation classification indicators of product quality and the single evaluation indicators included in each risk evaluation classification indicator according to the quality risk of gas appliance products;

[0006] The quality risk of the gas appliance products includes quality control in the production stage, overall product performance quality, quality of the main components used in the product, and product structure and process quality;

[0007] The risk evaluation classification indicators of the gas appliance products are divided into four categories: quality control indicators in the production stage, overall product performance quality indicators, quality indicators of the main components used in the product, and product structure and process quality indicators;

[0008] Step 2: Determine the weight of each single evaluation indicator included in each risk evaluation classification indicator to obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation indicators of each risk evaluation classification indicator;

[0009] Step 3: Determine the evaluation grade V of the product quality risk evaluation, , where V1 represents high risk, V2 represents relatively high risk, V3 represents general risk, and V4 represents low risk;

[0010] Step 4: Calculate the membership degree vector of each single evaluation indicator in each risk evaluation classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation grade, and construct the evaluation matrix of the risk evaluation classification indicators of gas appliance product quality;

[0011] Step 5: Calculate the evaluation value of each type of risk evaluation classification index corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level based on the weight vector and evaluation matrix of the risk evaluation classification index.

[0012] Step 6: Use the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level according to the evaluation value of each type of risk evaluation classification index corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level calculated in Step 5.

[0013] Step 7: Select the maximum value of the elements in the comprehensive evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level as the product quality risk evaluation level of the gas appliance, where is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the high-risk level of the product quality risk evaluation, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the relatively high-risk level of the product quality risk evaluation, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the general-risk level of the product quality risk evaluation, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the low-risk level of the product quality risk evaluation.

[0014] Advantages of the present invention:

[0015] 1. The present invention determines the risk evaluation classification index and single evaluation index of the gas appliance product quality, and conducts evaluation and analysis based on this.

[0016] 2. The present invention establishes a gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method and model, and conducts evaluation and analysis based on this.

[0017] 3. The present invention provides a scientific, accurate, and quantitative evaluation method, which can calculate the real and specific risk evaluation value through the evaluation mathematical model based on the quality control in the production stage of the gas appliance, the overall performance quality of the product, the quality of the main components used in the product, and the quality of the product structure and process, and give the corresponding risk level.

[0018] 4. The present invention can replace the subjective judgment of human experience. The real and specific risk evaluation value and risk evaluation level calculated through the evaluation model are more scientific, accurate, quantitative, and effective than the subjective judgment of human experience. Description of the Drawings

[0019] The specification drawings forming a part of the present invention are used to provide a further understanding of the present invention. The schematic embodiments of the present invention and their descriptions are used to explain the present invention and do not constitute an improper limitation to the present invention.

[0020] Figure 1 is a flowchart of a gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method of the present invention;

[0021] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the product quality risk evaluation classification index adopted by a gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method of the present invention. Detailed implementation manners

[0022] It should be noted that the following detailed description is illustrative and is intended to provide further explanation of the present application. Unless otherwise specified, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the technical field to which the present application belongs.

[0023] It should be noted that the terms used herein are only for describing the specific implementation manners and are not intended to limit the plural forms according to the present application. In addition, it should also be understood that when the terms "include" and / or "comprise" are used in this specification, they indicate the presence of features, steps, operations, devices, components, and / or combinations thereof.

[0024] As Figure 1 shown, a gas appliance product quality risk evaluation method of the present invention includes the following steps:

[0025] Step 1: As Figure 2 shown, determine the risk evaluation classification index of the product quality according to the quality risk of the gas appliance product and the single evaluation index included in each risk evaluation classification index;

[0026] The quality risks of the gas appliance products include quality control in the production stage, overall product performance quality, quality of the main components used in the product, and product structure and process quality.

[0027] The risk evaluation classification index of the gas appliance product is divided into four categories:

[0028] The production stage quality control index U1 is a document quality index used to measure and monitor the work quality, process execution, etc. of each link and step in the production process of the product, ensure that the production process meets the standards and requirements, and guarantee the product quality stability; according to the CNCA-00C-005 "Implementation Rules for Compulsory Product Certification - Factory Quality Assurance Ability Requirements" issued by the China National Certification and Accreditation Administration, it may include the following single evaluation indicators: key component quality control level, production process control level, routine inspection control level, confirmation inspection control level, instrument and equipment control level for routine inspection and confirmation inspection, nonconforming product control level, internal quality control level, etc.

[0029] The overall product performance quality index U2 is used to comprehensively reflect the level achieved by the product in terms of technical performance, etc., and a series of quantitative indicators for evaluating whether a gas appliance meets the design requirements and user needs; according to product standards such as GB 16410-2020 "Household Gas Cookers", GB 6932-2015 "Household Gas Instant Water Heaters", GB 25034-2020 "Gas-Fired Heating and Hot Water Combines", and GB 35848-2024 "Commercial Gas Combustion Appliances", the following single evaluation indicators may be included: gas leakage amount, combustion system leakage amount, heat load deviation, measured CO content, leakage current value, grounding resistance value, operating temperature of the overheat protection device, ignition safety time, opening and closing times of the thermoelectric flameout protection device, surface temperature rise of the main components and easily accessible parts of the gas appliance, etc.

[0030] Taking the gas-fired heating and hot water combine product as an example, the overall product performance quality U2 includes 8 single evaluation indicators such as gas leakage amount, combustion system leakage amount, heat load deviation, CO content under the limit heat load state, leakage current value, grounding resistance value, operating temperature of the overheat protection device, and ignition safety time.

[0031] The quality index U3 of the main components used in the product is an index for evaluating the reliability of the main components that make up the product during long-term use to ensure the overall long-term operation quality of the components supported by the components; according to the product standard and GB / T 36503-2018 "Quality Inspection and Grade Assessment of Gas Combustion Appliances", the following single evaluation indicators may be included: number of cyclic operations of the manual cock valve, number of high and low temperature cyclic dynamic operations of the flameout protection device, number of consecutive start-up operations of the gas proportional valve, number of temperature alternating resistances of the burner, number of thermal shock resistances of the heat exchanger, number of consecutive start-up operations of the controller, number of cyclic operations of the ignition device, number of cyclic start-stop operations of the waterway assembly, number of heat-resistant cycles of the temperature control device, number of cyclic start-stop operations of the air pressure switch, number of cyclic operations of the air pressure sensor, number of cyclic operations of the pressure sensing device, etc.

[0032] Taking the gas-fired heating and hot water combine product as an example, the quality index of the main components used in the product includes 9 single evaluation indicators such as the number of consecutive start-up operations of the gas proportional valve, number of temperature alternating resistances of the burner, number of thermal shock resistances of the heat exchanger, number of consecutive start-up operations of the controller, number of cyclic operations of the ignition device, number of cyclic start-stop operations of the waterway assembly, number of heat-resistant cycles of the temperature control device, number of cyclic start-stop operations of the air pressure switch, and number of cyclic operations of the pressure sensing device.

[0033] The product structure process quality index U4 refers to the relevant index used to measure the influence degree of product structure and process on product quality during product manufacturing and use; it can include the following single evaluation indexes: single evaluation indexes such as product appearance reliability, product processing technology reliability, etc. The product appearance reliability can be overall evaluated from three aspects: the quality of product packaging protection, whether the product identification is complete, and the thickness of the product shell material. The product processing technology reliability can be overall evaluated from four aspects: the reliability of product gas pipeline connection, the reliability of water pipeline connection, the regularity of internal wiring, and the tightness of screws.

[0034] Taking the gas heating water heater product as an example, the product appearance reliability is overall evaluated from three aspects: the quality of product packaging protection, whether the product identification is complete, and the thickness of the product shell material. For example, using a wooden frame for product packaging is more reliable than using a cardboard box, whether the energy efficiency label and the mandatory certification CCC label of the product are complete, and the thicker the shell material, the better the reliability. The product processing technology reliability is overall evaluated from four aspects: the reliability of product gas pipeline connection, the reliability of water pipeline connection, the regularity of internal wiring, and the tightness of screws. For example, the gas pipeline and water pipeline connections are reliable without looseness, the internal wiring is regular, and the screws at each connection part are not loose.

[0035] Step 2: Determine the weights of the single evaluation indexes included in each risk evaluation classification index to obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation indexes of each risk evaluation classification index. The specific steps include:

[0036] Step 20: Use the analytic hierarchy process to determine the weights of the single evaluation indexes in the quality control indexes during the production stage to obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation indexes. The specific method is as follows:

[0037] Step 201: Determine the importance degree of one single evaluation index relative to another single evaluation index in the single evaluation indexes according to the 1-9 scale method (specifically refer to "Principles of Analytic Hierarchy Process", pages 8-9, Tianjin University Press, 1988). The meaning of the scale is: 1 means that the two single evaluation indexes are equally important, 3 means that the former is slightly more important than the latter, 5 means that the former is significantly more important than the latter, 7 means that the former is strongly more important than the latter, 9 means that the former is extremely more important than the latter, and 2, 4, 6, 8 are the intermediate values of the above adjacent judgments.

[0038] The following is an example for illustration: Invite experts in mandatory certification review to understand and check the factory's quality assurance ability, and evaluate the importance degree among the above single evaluation indexes of the factory. For example, if the review experts think that the key component quality control level index is slightly more important than the production process control level index, that is, the importance degree of the key component quality control level index relative to the production process control level index is 3, then the importance degree of the production process control level index relative to the key component quality control index level is 1 / 3.

[0039] Step 202, construct the judgment matrix of the quality control index U1 in the production stage:

[0040] Construct the judgment matrix of the quality control index U1 in the production stage of the kth gas appliance according to the importance degree between single evaluation indexes given by the review experts :

[0041]

[0042] where is the importance degree of the single evaluation index i1 relative to another single evaluation index j1 in the quality control index U1 in the production stage of the kth gas appliance, n1 is the number of single evaluation indexes in the quality control index U1 in the production stage, and n1×n1 is the order of the judgment matrix.

[0043] Step 203, calculate the weight of each single evaluation index in the quality control index U1 in the production stage. The specific process is as follows:

[0044] First step, calculate the product of the elements in the i'-th row of the judgment matrix as follows: :

[0045]

[0046] Second step, calculate the n1-th root of the product of each row element as follows: :

[0047]

[0048] Third step, normalize as follows to obtain the weight of the i1-th single evaluation index in the quality control index U1 in the production stage of the kth gas appliance , and the weight vector of the n1 single evaluation indexes in the quality control index U1 in the production stage of the kth gas appliance ;

[0049]

[0050] Step 204, conduct consistency verification on the weights of the single evaluation indexes. If the requirements are met, the weight vector in Step 203 is valid; otherwise, repeat Steps 201 to 204:

[0051] First step, calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix as follows:

[0052]

[0053] Among them and are the and th elements of the vectors respectively

[0054] In the second step, calculate the consistency index of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula :

[0055]

[0056] In the third step, calculate the consistency ratio of the kth gas appliance

[0057]

[0058] is the standard value of the average random consistency index, which can be obtained by looking up the table (specifically refer to "Principles of Analytic Hierarchy Process", page 11, Tianjin University Press, 1988). Among them, the values of 3rd-order matrix to 10th-order matrix are 0.52, 0.89, 1.12, 1.26, 1.36, 1.41, 1.46, 1.49 respectively

[0059] When < 0.1, it is considered that the judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency and the weight vector is valid; otherwise, the judgment matrix needs to be adjusted again. The adjustment measures include rechecking whether the relative importance assignment among the indicators in the judgment matrix is reasonable, increasing the sample size or the number of experts, etc

[0060] Step 30: Use the CRITIC objective weighting method to determine the weights of single evaluation indicators in the overall product performance quality indicator U2, and obtain the weight vector of single evaluation indicators

[0061] Step 301, detect the single evaluation indicators in the overall product performance quality indicator U2 according to the method specified in the gas appliance standard, and statistically analyze the test results in the inspection report issued after the detection

[0062] Step 302, perform data standardization processing on the test results of the single evaluation indicators of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula

[0063]

[0064]

[0065]

[0066] Among them, is the value of the i2-th single evaluation index after standardization in the overall product performance quality index U2 of the k-th gas appliance, is the test result of the i2-th single evaluation index in the k-th gas appliance U2, is the average value of the i2-th single evaluation index of all gas appliances for risk assessment, is the standard deviation of the i2-th single evaluation index of all gas appliances for risk assessment, and m is the number of all gas appliances for risk assessment.

[0067] Step 303, calculate the standard deviation of the single evaluation index after standardization according to the following formula :

[0068]

[0069] Step 304, calculate the correlation coefficient between the i2-th and j2-th single evaluation indexes of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula :

[0070]

[0071] where and are the values of the i2-th and j2-th single evaluation indexes of the k-th gas appliance after standardization, and m is the number of gas appliances for evaluation.

[0072] Step 305, calculate the conflict of the i2-th single evaluation index of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula :

[0073]

[0074] where n2 is the number of single evaluation indexes in the overall product performance quality index U2.

[0075] Step 306, calculate the information amount of the i2-th single evaluation index of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula :

[0076]

[0077] Step 307, calculate the weight of each single evaluation index in the overall product performance quality index U2 of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula , then the weight vector of the n2 single evaluation indexes in the overall product performance quality index U2 of the k-th gas appliance ;

[0078]

[0079] Step 40: Determine the weights of single evaluation indicators in the main component quality indicator U3 of the product using the CRITIC objective weighting method, and obtain the weight vector of single evaluation indicators:

[0080] Step 401: Statistically count the claimed values of single evaluation indicators claimed by the product manufacturer in the main component quality indicator U3 of the product.

[0081] Step 402: Use the same method as in Steps 302 to 307 to determine the weights of each single evaluation indicator in the main component quality indicator U3 of the product, and obtain the weight vector of n3 single evaluation indicators in the main component quality indicator U3 of the k-th gas appliance product. 。

[0082] Step 50: Determine the weights of single evaluation indicators in the product structure and process quality indicator U4 using the entropy weight method, and obtain the weight vector of single evaluation indicators:

[0083] Step 501: Invite product inspection experts to score each single evaluation indicator in the product structure and process quality indicator U4, with the score ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the product structure and process quality.

[0084] Step 502: Standardize the data of each single evaluation indicator in the product structure and process quality indicator U4 of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula:

[0085]

[0086] where, is the index value after standardization of the i4-th single evaluation indicator in the product structure and process quality indicator U4 of the k-th gas appliance, is the expert score value of the i4-th single evaluation indicator in U4 of the k-th gas appliance, is the minimum value of the i4-th single evaluation indicator of all gas appliances for risk assessment, is the maximum value of the i4-th single evaluation indicator of all gas appliances for risk assessment.

[0087] Step 503: Calculate the entropy value of the i4-th single evaluation indicator of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula :

[0088]

[0089] where m is the number of all gas appliances for risk assessment.

[0090] Step 504: Calculate the weights of each single evaluation indicator in the product structure and process quality indicator U4 of the k-th gas appliance according to the following formula , then the weight vector of the n4 single evaluation indicators in the product structure process quality index U4 of the k-th gas appliance ;

[0091]

[0092] Among them, n4 is the number of single evaluation index weights in the product structure process quality index U4.

[0093] Step 3: Determine the evaluation level V of the product quality risk assessment, , where V1 represents high risk, V2 represents relatively high risk, V3 represents general risk, and V4 represents low risk.

[0094] Step 4: Calculate the membership degree vector of each single evaluation indicator in each risk assessment classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and construct the evaluation matrix of the risk assessment classification indicators of the gas appliance product quality. The specific method is as follows:

[0095] Step 601: Use the method of scoring by factory review experts to determine the membership degree vector of the n1 single evaluation indicators in the quality control index U1 at the production stage corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and construct the evaluation matrix of the quality control index U1 at the production stage of the k-th gas appliance , where, is the membership degree vector of the i1-th single evaluation indicator in the risk assessment classification indicator U1 of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n1 is the number of single evaluation indicators in the risk assessment classification indicator U1 of the k-th gas appliance, and n1×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0096] The following is an example: For example, for the first evaluation indicator, the quality control level of key components, in the risk assessment classification indicator U1 of the first gas appliance, 10 review experts are invited to evaluate and score. If 3 of them think it is a high risk, 4 think it is a relatively high risk, 2 think it is a general risk, and 1 think it is a low risk, then the membership degree vector r of the quality control level of key components corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level 11,1 =(0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1). And so on, obtain the membership degree vectors of all single evaluation indicators in the quality control index U1 at the production stage corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and then construct the evaluation matrix of the quality control index U1 at the production stage of the k-th gas appliance , where, is the membership degree vector of the i1-th single evaluation indicator in the risk assessment classification indicator U1 of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n1 is the number of single evaluation indicators in U1, and n1×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0097] Step 602: For the n2 single evaluation indicators in the overall product performance quality index U2, use the trapezoidal function (see "Intelligent Control", page 21, Publishing House of Electronics Industry, 2021 for details) to determine the membership degree vectors of the n2 single evaluation indicators corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation levels, and construct the evaluation matrix of the overall product performance quality index U2 of the kth gas appliance. , where, is the membership degree vector of the i2th single evaluation indicator in the risk evaluation classification index U2 of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level, n2 is the number of single evaluation indicators in U2, and n2×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0098] The following is an example: For example, for the combustion system leakage amount p, according to the product standard and experience, determine the leakage amount ranges corresponding to each evaluation level. High risk: p > 5m 3 / h; Relatively high risk: 4m 3 / h < p ≤ 5m 3 / h; General risk: 3m 3 / h < p ≤ 4m 3 / h; Low risk: p ≤ 3m 3 / h. According to the leakage amount ranges, establish the trapezoidal functions of the combustion system leakage amount for different evaluation levels respectively:

[0099] High risk level:

[0100]

[0101] Relatively high risk level:

[0102]

[0103] General risk level:

[0104]

[0105] Low risk level:

[0106]

[0107] where, x p,k is the detection result of the combustion system leakage amount of the kth gas appliance.

[0108] If the detection result x p,1 of the combustion system leakage amount, which is the second evaluation indicator in the overall product performance quality index U2 of the first gas appliance, is 4.6m 3 / h, according to the trapezoidal function of the combustion system leakage amount, it can be calculated that μ 高 = 0, μ 较高 = 0.6, μ 一般 = 0, μ低 If it is = 0, then the membership degree vector r of the leakage amount p of the combustion system of the first gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level 22,1 =(0 0.6 0 0).

[0109] According to the trapezoidal function of the combustion system airtightness, the membership degree vector of the leakage amount index of the combustion system of each gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level can be calculated.

[0110] For all single evaluation indexes in the overall performance quality index U2 of the k-th gas appliance product, trapezoidal functions are established respectively according to the above steps, and the membership degree vectors of all single evaluation indexes corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level are calculated, and then the evaluation matrix of the overall performance quality index U2 of the k-th gas appliance product is constructed , where is the membership degree vector of the i2-th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U2 of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n2 is the number of single evaluation indexes in U2, and n2×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0111] Step 603: According to the method in Step 602, trapezoidal functions are established respectively for the n3 single evaluation indexes in the quality U3 of the main components used in the k-th gas appliance product, and the membership degree vectors of all single evaluation indexes corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level are calculated, and the evaluation matrix of the quality U3 of the main components used in the k-th gas appliance product is constructed , where is the membership degree vector of the i3-th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U3 of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n3 is the number of single evaluation indexes in U3, and n3×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0112] Step 604: According to the method in Step 601, for the n4 single evaluation indexes in the product structure and process quality index U4 of the k-th gas appliance product, the method of expert scoring for product inspection is used to calculate the membership degree vectors of all single evaluation indexes corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and the evaluation matrix of the product structure and process quality index U4 of the k-th gas appliance product is constructed , where is the membership degree vector of the i4-th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U4 of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n4 is the number of single evaluation indexes in U4, and n4×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

[0113] Step Five: Based on the weight vector and evaluation matrix of the risk assessment classification index, calculate the evaluation value of each type of risk assessment classification index corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level. The specific method is as follows:

[0114] Calculate the evaluation values corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation levels for each type of risk evaluation classification index according to the following formula :

[0115]

[0116]

[0117] Among them, t represents the risk evaluation classification index (U1, U2, U3, U4), t = 1, 2, 3, 4, and h represents the product quality risk evaluation level, h = 1, 2, 3, 4. h = 1 represents a high risk level, h = 2 represents a relatively high risk level, h = 3 represents a general risk level, and h = 4 represents a low risk level. is the weight vector of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation matrix of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation value corresponding to the high risk level of the product quality risk evaluation of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation value corresponding to the relatively high risk level of the product quality risk evaluation of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation value corresponding to the general risk level of the product quality risk evaluation of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation value corresponding to the low risk level of the product quality risk evaluation of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the evaluation value corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level h of the t-th risk evaluation classification index of the k-th gas appliance is the weight vector of the risk evaluation classification index in the -th element is the evaluation matrix in the h-th column vector of the -th element , where is the number of single evaluation indicators included in each risk evaluation classification index

[0118] Step 6: Use the analytic hierarchy process to calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level according to the evaluation values corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation levels of each type of risk evaluation classification index calculated in Step 5. The specific method is as follows:

[0119] Step 701: According to the 1-9 scale method in Steps 201 to 202, invite experts to determine the importance of the risk assessment classification indicators U1, U2, U3, and U4 relative to each other. Based on the importance of the risk assessment classification indicators given by the experts, construct the judgment matrix for the risk assessment of the k-th gas appliance. .

[0120] Step 702: According to the method in Steps 203 to 204, determine the weight vector between the risk assessment classification indicators of the k-th gas appliance. .

[0121] Step 703: Based on the evaluation values of the risk assessment classification indicators corresponding to the product quality risk assessment levels calculated in Step Five , construct the comprehensive evaluation matrix for the product quality risk assessment of the k-th gas appliance , , where 4×4 is the order of the matrix. The first 4 represents the number of risk assessment classification indicators, and the second 4 represents the number of risk assessment levels.

[0122] Step 704: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level according to the following formula :

[0123]

[0124]

[0125] where h represents the product quality risk assessment level, h = 1, 2, 3, 4. h = 1 represents the high risk level, h = 2 represents the relatively high risk level, h = 3 represents the general risk level, and h = 4 represents the low risk level. is the weight vector between the risk assessment classification indicators of the k-th gas appliance, is the comprehensive evaluation matrix for the risk assessment of the k-th gas appliance, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the high risk level of the product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the relatively high risk level of the product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the general risk level of the product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the low risk level of the product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level h, is the weight vector between the risk assessment classification indicators the s-th element in, s = 1, 2, 3, 4, is the comprehensive evaluation matrix The s-th element in the h-th column vector in

[0126] Step Seven: Select the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level of the k-th gas appliance The maximum value of the elements in is used as the product quality risk evaluation level of the gas appliance. The specific method is as follows:

[0127] According to the final comprehensive evaluation result of the k-th gas appliance , determine , , , The maximum value. When The element in has the largest value, it represents that the product quality risk of the k-th gas appliance is a high risk; when The element in has the largest value, it represents that the product quality risk of the k-th gas appliance is a relatively high risk; when The element in has the largest value, it represents that the product quality risk of the k-th gas appliance is a general risk; when The element in has the largest value, it represents that the product quality risk of the k-th gas appliance is a low risk.

[0128] An example is given as follows: For example, the comprehensive evaluation value V=(0.12 0.25 0.42 0.21) corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level of the first gas appliance, where the maximum value is 0.42, corresponding to "general risk" in the evaluation level V. Then the product quality risk of this gas appliance belongs to the general risk level. This indicates that there are certain risks in aspects such as quality control in the production stage, overall product performance quality, quality of the main components used in the product, and product appearance structure quality of this product, but the overall risk is at an acceptable general level. The production enterprise can, according to the evaluation results of each risk factor, improve the production process and strengthen quality inspection in a targeted manner to reduce the product quality risk.

[0129] The above are only the preferred embodiments of the present application and are not used to limit the present application. For those skilled in the art, the present application can have various changes and modifications. Any modification, equivalent replacement, improvement, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present application shall be included within the protection scope of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality risk of gas appliances, characterized in that The following steps are involved: Step 1: Determine the risk assessment classification indicators of product quality and the single assessment indicators contained in each risk assessment classification indicator according to the quality risk of gas appliance products; The quality risks of gas appliance products include quality control at the production stage, overall product performance quality, quality of major components used in the product, and product structure and process quality; The risk assessment classification indicators of gas appliance products are divided into four categories: quality control indicators in the production stage, quality indicators of overall product performance, quality indicators of major components used in the product, and quality indicators of product structure and process; Step 2: Determine the weight of the single evaluation indicator included in each risk assessment classification indicator to obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation indicator of each risk assessment classification indicator; Step 3: Determine the evaluation level V of product quality risk assessment. , where V1 represents high risk, V2 represents higher risk, V3 represents average risk, and V4 represents low risk; Step 4: Calculate the degree of membership vector of each single evaluation indicator in each risk assessment classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and construct an evaluation matrix of the risk assessment classification indicators of gas appliance product quality; Step 5: Based on the weight vector and evaluation matrix of the risk assessment classification indicators, calculate the evaluation value of each type of risk assessment classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level; Step 6: Using the analytic hierarchy process, calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level according to the evaluation value of each risk assessment classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level calculated in step 5; Step 7: Select the comprehensive evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level The maximum value of the elements in the gas appliance product quality risk assessment level is used as the maximum value of the elements in the gas appliance product quality risk assessment level, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the high risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the higher risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the general risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the low risk level of product quality risk assessment.

2. The gas appliance product quality risk assessment method according to claim 1 is characterized in that: The quality control indicators of the production stage include the following single evaluation indicators: key parts quality control level, production process control level, routine inspection control level, confirmation inspection control level, routine inspection and confirmation inspection instrument and equipment control level, non-conforming product control level, and internal quality control level; The overall product performance quality indicators include the following single evaluation indicators: gas leakage, combustion system leakage, heat load deviation, measured CO content, leakage current value, grounding resistance value, overheat protection device action temperature, ignition safety time, thermoelectric flameout protection device valve opening and closing time, main parts and easily accessible parts of gas appliances, and surface temperature rise; The quality indicators of the main parts used in the products described include the following single evaluation indicators: the number of manual plug valve cycle operations, the number of high and low temperature cycle dynamics of the flameout protection device, the number of continuous start-up operations of the gas proportional valve, the number of temperature alternation resistance of the burner, the number of cold and hot shock resistance of the heat exchanger, the number of continuous start-up operations of the controller, the number of cycle operations of the ignition device, the number of cycle operation start and stop times of the water circuit component, the number of heat resistance cycles of the temperature control device, the number of cycle operation start and stop times of the wind pressure switch, the number of cycle operation start and stop times of the wind pressure sensor, and the number of cycle operation start and stop times of the pressure sensor; The product structure process quality indicators include the following single evaluation indicators: product appearance reliability and product processing technology reliability.

3. The method for gas appliance product quality risk assessment according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The step 2 specifically includes the following steps: Step 20, using the analytic hierarchy process to determine the weight of a single evaluation indicator in the quality control indicators of the production stage, and obtaining a weight vector of the single evaluation indicator, the specific method is: Step 201, determining the importance of a single evaluation indicator relative to another single evaluation indicator among the single evaluation indicators according to the 1-9 scale method; Step 202, construct the judgment matrix of the quality control index U1 in the production stage: According to the importance of the single evaluation indicators given by the review experts, the judgment matrix of the quality control indicator U1 in the production stage of the kth gas appliance is constructed. : ,in is the importance of the single evaluation index i1 in the quality control index U1 of the production stage of the k-th gas appliance relative to another single evaluation index j1, n1 is the number of single evaluation indicators in the quality control index U1 of the production stage, and n1×n1 is the order of the judgment matrix; Step 203, calculate the weight of each single evaluation index in the production stage quality control index U1, the specific process is as follows: The first step is to calculate the judgment matrix as follows The product of the elements in the i'th row : ; The second step is to calculate the product of each row of elements according to the formula The n1 root : ; The third step is to press the formula Normalization is performed to obtain the weight of the i1th single evaluation index in the quality control index U1 of the kth gas appliance production stage , then the weight vector of n1 single evaluation indicators in the quality control index U1 of the kth gas appliance production stage is ; ; Step 204, check the consistency of the weight of a single evaluation indicator. If the requirements are met, the weight vector in step 203 is valid; otherwise, repeat steps 201 to 204: The first step is to calculate the judgment matrix as follows The maximum eigenvalue of : ,in and The vectors are and No. elements; The second step is to press the formula according to Calculate the consistency index of the kth gas appliance : ; The third step is to calculate the consistency ratio of the kth gas appliance : , is the standard value of the average random consistency index, when When <0.1, the judgment matrix is ​​considered to have satisfactory consistency and the weight vector is valid; Step 30: Use the CRITIC objective weighting method to determine the weight of a single evaluation indicator in the overall product performance quality index, and obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation indicator: Step 301, testing a single evaluation index in the overall performance quality index of the product according to the method specified in the gas appliance standard, and statistically analyzing the test results in the inspection report issued after the test; Step 302, perform data standardization processing on the inspection result of the single evaluation index of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: , , ,in, is the index value of the i2th single evaluation index in the overall performance quality index U2 of the kth gas appliance after standardized processing, is the test result of the i2th single evaluation index in the kth gas appliance U2, is the average value of the ith single evaluation index of all gas appliances for risk assessment, is the standard deviation of the i2th single evaluation index of all gas appliances subject to risk assessment, and m is the number of all gas appliances subject to risk assessment; Step 303: Calculate the standard deviation of the single evaluation index after standardization as follows: : ; Step 304, calculate the correlation coefficient between the i2th and j2th single evaluation indicators of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: : ,in, and The index values ​​of the i2th and j2th single evaluation indexes of the kth gas appliance after standardized processing; Step 305, calculate the conflict of the i2th single evaluation index of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: : , where n2 is the number of single evaluation indicators in the overall product performance quality index U2; Step 306, calculate the information amount of the i2th single evaluation index of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: : ; Step 307, calculate the weight of each single evaluation index in the overall performance quality index U2 of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: , then the weight vector of n2 single evaluation indicators in the overall performance quality index U2 of the kth gas appliance product is ; ; Step 40: Use the CRITIC objective weighting method to determine the weight of a single evaluation index in the quality index U3 of the main components used in the product, and obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation index: Step 401, respectively counting the claimed values ​​of the single evaluation indicators claimed by the product manufacturer in the quality indicators U3 of the main components used in the product; Step 402, using the same method as steps 302 to 307 to determine the weight of each single evaluation index in the quality index U3 of the main components used in the product, and obtain the weight vector of n3 single evaluation indexes in the quality index U3 of the main components used in the k-th gas appliance product ; Step 50: Use the entropy weight method to determine the weight of a single evaluation index in the product structure process quality index U4, and obtain the weight vector of the single evaluation index: Step 501, invite product inspection experts to score each single evaluation index in the product structure process quality index U4, with the score ranging from 0 to 100 points. The higher the score, the better the product structure process quality; Step 502, standardize each single evaluation index data in the product structure process quality index U4 of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: ,in, is the index value of the i4th single evaluation index in the product structure process quality index U4 of the kth gas appliance after standardized processing, is the expert score of the i4th single evaluation index in the kth gas appliance U4, is the minimum value of the 4th single evaluation index of all gas appliances for risk assessment, The maximum value of the 14th single evaluation index of all gas appliances subject to risk assessment; Step 503, calculate the entropy value of the i4th single evaluation index of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: : ; Step 504, calculate the weight of each single evaluation index in the product structure process quality index U4 of the kth gas appliance according to the following formula: , then the weight vector of n4 single evaluation indicators in the product structure process quality index U4 of the kth gas appliance is ; , where n4 is the number of single evaluation index weights in the product structure process quality index U4.

4. The method for risk assessment of gas appliance product quality according to claim 3 is characterized in that: The specific method of step 4 is as follows: Step 601, using the factory review expert scoring method to determine the membership vector of the n1 single evaluation indicators in the production stage quality control indicator U1 corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and construct the evaluation matrix of the k-th gas appliance production stage quality control indicator U1 ,in, is the degree of membership vector of the i1th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U1 of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n1 is the number of single evaluation indicators in the risk assessment classification index U1 of the kth gas appliance, and n1×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix; Step 602: for the n2 single evaluation indicators in the product overall performance quality indicator U2, a trapezoidal function is used to determine the membership vector of the n2 single evaluation indicators corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and an evaluation matrix of the overall performance quality indicator U2 of the kth gas appliance product is constructed. ,in, is the membership vector of the i2th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U2 of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n2 is the number of single evaluation indicators in U2, and n2×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix; Step 603: According to the method of step 602, a trapezoidal function is established for each of the n3 single evaluation indicators in the quality U3 of the main components used in the k-th gas appliance product, and the membership vectors corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level of all single evaluation indicators are calculated to construct an evaluation matrix for the quality U3 of the main components used in the k-th gas appliance product. ,in, is the membership vector of the i3th single evaluation index in the risk assessment classification index U3 of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n3 is the number of single evaluation indicators in U3, and n3×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix; Step 604: According to the method of step 601, the n4 single evaluation indicators in the product structure process quality indicator U4 of the k-th gas appliance are scored by product inspection experts to calculate the membership vectors of all single evaluation indicators corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, and construct the evaluation matrix of the product structure process quality indicator U4 of the k-th gas appliance. ,in, is the membership vector of the i4th single evaluation indicator in the risk assessment classification index U4 of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level, n4 is the number of single evaluation indicators in U4, and n4×4 is the order of the evaluation matrix.

5. The method for risk assessment of gas appliance product quality according to claim 4 is characterized in that: The specific method of step five is as follows: Calculate the evaluation value of each risk assessment classification indicator corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level as follows: : , , where t represents the risk assessment classification index, t=1,2,3,4, h represents the product quality risk assessment level, h=1,2,3,4; h=1 represents a high risk level, h=2 represents a relatively high risk level, h=3 represents a general risk level, and h=4 represents a low risk level; is the weight vector of the t-th risk assessment classification index of the k-th gas appliance, is the evaluation matrix of the t-th risk assessment classification index of the k-th gas appliance, is the evaluation value of the t-th risk assessment classification indicator of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the high risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the t-th risk assessment classification indicator of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the higher risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the t-th risk assessment classification indicator of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the general risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the t-th risk assessment classification indicator of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the low risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the t-th risk assessment classification indicator of the k-th gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level h, is the risk assessment classification index weight vector The elements, For the evaluation matrix The hth column vector in elements; , here The number of single evaluation indicators contained in each risk assessment classification indicator.

6. The method for risk assessment of gas appliance product quality according to claim 5 is characterized in that: The specific method of step six is ​​as follows: Step 701, according to the 1-9 scale method of step 201 to step 202, invite experts to determine the importance of the production stage quality control indicator U1, the product overall performance quality indicator U2, the main component quality indicator U3 used in the product, and the product structure process quality indicator U4 in the risk assessment classification indicators. According to the importance of the risk assessment classification indicators given by the experts, the judgment matrix of the risk assessment of the k-th gas appliance is constructed. ; Step 702: According to the method of steps 203 to 204, determine the weight vector between the risk assessment classification indicators of the kth gas appliance ; Step 703: the risk assessment classification index calculated in step 5 corresponds to the evaluation value of the product quality risk assessment level. , construct a comprehensive evaluation matrix for the product quality risk assessment of the kth gas appliance , , 4×4 is the order of the matrix, the first 4 represents the number of risk assessment classification indicators, and the second 4 represents the number of risk assessment levels; Step 704: Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk evaluation level according to the following formula: : , , where h represents the product quality risk assessment level, h=1,2,3,4; h=1 represents a high risk level, h=2 represents a relatively high risk level, h=3 represents a general risk level, and h=4 represents a low risk level; is the weight vector between the risk assessment classification indicators of the k-th gas appliance, is the comprehensive evaluation matrix for the risk assessment of the k-th gas appliance, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the high risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the higher risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the general risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the low risk level of product quality risk assessment, is the evaluation value of the kth gas appliance corresponding to the product quality risk assessment level h, is the weight vector between risk assessment classification indicators The sth element in , s=1,2,3,4, Comprehensive evaluation matrix The sth element in the hth column vector in .

7. The method for risk assessment of gas appliance product quality according to claim 6, characterized in that: The specific method of step seven is as follows: According to the final comprehensive evaluation results of the kth gas appliance ,Sure , , , The maximum value of Medium Element When the value of is the largest, it means that the quality risk of the k-th gas appliance product is high risk; when Medium Element When the value of is the largest, it means that the quality risk of the k-th gas appliance product is high risk; when Medium Element When the value of is the largest, it means that the quality risk of the k-th gas appliance product is a general risk; when Medium Element When the value of is the largest, it means that the quality risk of the k-th gas appliance product is low risk.

Images