A proficiency testing system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls

Abstract

This invention relates to the field of proficiency testing technology for evaluating the construction quality of building envelope structures, and discloses a proficiency testing system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls. The system includes: a database construction module configured to store the axial coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards and clauses of the building curtain wall; a verification module configured to randomly select several axial coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements; an input module configured to input the basic information and answers of the personnel to be verified; a scoring module configured to perform preliminary scoring and initial score adjustment for the personnel to be verified based on defect identification, inspection category judgment, determination of inspection standards and clauses, and textual description of defect information; and a scoring output module configured to output the personnel to be verified as those who passed and those who failed based on the final score. This invention ensures the accuracy, objectivity, comprehensiveness, scientific nature, and reliability of the evaluation results.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of capability verification technology for evaluating the construction quality of building envelope structures, and more specifically, to a capability verification system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls. Background Technology

[0002] Building curtain walls are often located in densely populated urban areas, and any safety issues could easily lead to serious casualties and property damage. The construction quality of building curtain walls directly affects the overall safety, durability, and aesthetics of a building; therefore, quality control relies heavily on the accurate identification and professional evaluation of construction defects by qualified personnel. While there are numerous building curtain wall testing and inspection institutions in China, their overall technical levels vary considerably. Proficiency testing, as an internationally recognized and scientifically effective means of verifying the technical capabilities and levels of personnel in testing and inspection institutions, can effectively assess their professional competence and practical skills.

[0003] Traditional proficiency testing methods for construction quality assessment often rely on fixed question banks or experience-based assessments, resulting in problems such as low standardization of information sources, susceptibility to test-taking biases, and limited evaluation dimensions. Specifically, existing proficiency testing methods often struggle to systematically store all detailed information about building curtain walls, leading to information gaps and inconsistent criteria during the testing process. Fixed assessment content may cause test-takers to rely on rote memorization rather than actual ability, failing to accurately reflect their judgment of different defects. Furthermore, evaluation criteria are typically limited to simple results such as the presence or absence of defects, lacking a comprehensive examination of the defect analysis process, such as the number of defects, standard descriptions of defect information, and the standardization of applicable standards and clauses, resulting in insufficient objectivity and scientific rigor in the scoring results. These problems make traditional proficiency testing methods ineffective in evaluating the technical capabilities and levels of practitioners, potentially affecting the effective control of building curtain wall construction quality and increasing project safety risks.

[0004] Therefore, it is necessary to provide a proficiency testing system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls to solve the problems of traditional proficiency testing processes being susceptible to test-oriented tendencies and having a single evaluation dimension. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of this, the present invention proposes a capability verification system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls, which aims to solve the problems of traditional capability verification processes being easily affected by test-oriented tendencies and having a single evaluation dimension.

[0006] This invention proposes a capability verification system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls, comprising: The database construction module is configured to store the axial coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards and clauses of the building curtain wall; The verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, so that the personnel to be verified can identify and verify defects. The input module is configured to input the basic information of the person to be verified and their response information; wherein, the response information includes defect identification, textual description of defect information, judgment of inspection category, and determination of inspection basis standards and clauses; The scoring module is configured to determine the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection basis standards and clauses, and obtain an initial score; and to adjust the initial score based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain a final score. The scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as those who have passed verification and those who have failed verification based on the final score.

[0007] Furthermore, the database construction module also stores the difficulty coefficients corresponding to the coordinates of each axis. The difficulty coefficients include the difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection standards and clauses. The difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses range from [0,1].

[0008] Furthermore, when the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it includes: The preset verification requirements include a range of difficulty levels; Within the range of the aforementioned difficulty coefficient, the difficulty coefficient of defect information, the difficulty coefficient of inspection category, and the difficulty coefficient of inspection basis standards and clauses are randomly selected, and axis coordinates that match the selected difficulty coefficients are extracted from the database construction module. Among them, the sum of the difficulty coefficients of randomly selecting defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses is within the range of difficulty coefficients.

[0009] Furthermore, when the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it also includes: The total number of defects corresponding to the randomly selected axis coordinates is within the preset defect number range.

[0010] Furthermore, the basic information of the person to be verified includes: Personnel code, name of affiliated institution, years of service, professional title level, and type of qualification certification.

[0011] Furthermore, the scoring module is configured to determine an initial score for the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection criteria and clauses, and to obtain the initial score value, including: A baseline score is assigned to each defect corresponding to a randomly selected axis coordinate; wherein, the baseline score for a defect-free defect is lower than the baseline score for a defect-containing defect, and the baseline score for a defect with fewer defects is lower than the baseline score for a defect with more defects; the sum of the baseline scores is a preset complete baseline score; The system matches the defects of each axis coordinate in the responses of the personnel to be verified with the preset defects. If there is a match and the inspection category, inspection standard and clause are all correct, a full benchmark score is assigned. If the defect matches but the inspection category is judged incorrectly, or the inspection standard and clause are incomplete or incorrect, a partial benchmark score is assigned. If the defect does not match, zero points are assigned. The partial benchmark score is a preset proportion of the full benchmark score. Calculate the sum of the scores for all answer axis coordinates, and use the sum of the scores as the initial score value.

[0012] Furthermore, the scoring module is configured to adjust the initial scoring value based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain the final scoring value, including: The textual description of the defect information of each axis coordinate in the response of the person to be verified is semantically matched with the preset standard description template to obtain the description matching degree; The description deduction value is determined based on the description matching degree; The final score is obtained based on the deduction value and the initial score.

[0013] Furthermore, when obtaining the final score based on the deduction value and the initial score, it includes: Subtracting the deductions for each defect from the initial score yields the final score.

[0014] Furthermore, when the scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as either "passed verification personnel" or "failed verification personnel" based on the final score, it includes: Output the personnel whose final score is greater than or equal to the preset score threshold as those who have passed the verification. Those whose final score is less than the preset score threshold will be output as those who have failed the verification.

[0015] Compared with existing technologies, the advantages of this invention are as follows: This invention systematically stores the axis coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards, and clauses of building curtain walls through a database construction module, providing a standardized data foundation for construction quality evaluation and ensuring the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and consistency of information sources during the verification process. The verification module randomly selects axis coordinates for personnel to identify and verify defects. This randomization mechanism effectively avoids the test-taking bias caused by a fixed question bank, and can more realistically reflect the actual judgment ability of the personnel to be verified, improving the objectivity of the proficiency verification results. The input module comprehensively collects the basic information and answer information of the personnel to be verified. Detailed records of defect identification, textual descriptions of defect information, inspection category judgments, and determination of inspection standards and clauses provide multi-dimensional evaluation basis for subsequent scoring, extending the evaluation beyond simple result judgment to a comprehensive examination of the defect analysis process. The scoring module employs a combination of preliminary scoring and final value adjustment. Initial scores are determined based on defect identification, inspection category judgment, and inspection standards and clauses. These initial scores are then optimized through textual descriptions of defect information. This tiered scoring method ensures both quantitative accuracy and adequate consideration of the standardized and professional nature of responses, resulting in more scientific and reasonable scoring results. The scoring output module clearly distinguishes between those who passed and those who failed based on the final scores, enabling the identification of qualified personnel. This provides a reliable talent pool for the quality control of building curtain wall construction and helps improve the overall construction quality of the curtain wall project from the perspective of inspection and testing personnel capabilities, reducing project risks caused by insufficient construction quality evaluation capabilities. Attached Figure Description

[0016] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly described below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort. In the drawings: Figure 1 This is a functional block diagram of the building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0017] Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. While exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are shown in the drawings, it should be understood that the present disclosure may be implemented in various forms and should not be limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided to enable a more thorough understanding of the present disclosure and to fully convey the scope of the disclosure to those skilled in the art. It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, embodiments and features in the embodiments of the present invention can be combined with each other. The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0018] In some embodiments of this application, see Figure 1 As shown, this embodiment provides a building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system, including: The database construction module is configured to store the axial coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards and clauses of the building curtain wall; The verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, so that the personnel to be verified can identify and verify defects. The input module is configured to input the basic information of the person to be verified and their response information; wherein, the response information includes defect identification, textual description of defect information, judgment of inspection category, and determination of inspection basis standards and clauses; The scoring module is configured to determine the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection basis standards and clauses, and obtain an initial score; and to adjust the initial score based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain a final score. The scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as those who have passed verification and those who have failed verification based on the final score.

[0019] Understandably, this invention systematically stores the axial coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards, and clauses of building curtain walls through a database construction module. This provides a standardized data foundation for construction quality evaluation, ensuring the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and consistency of information sources during proficiency testing. The verification module randomly selects axial coordinates for personnel to identify defects. This randomization mechanism effectively avoids the test-taking bias caused by a fixed question bank, more realistically reflecting the actual judgment ability of the personnel to be verified and improving the objectivity of the proficiency testing results. The input module comprehensively collects the basic information and answers of the personnel to be verified. Detailed records of defect identification, textual descriptions of defect information, inspection category judgments, and determination of inspection standards and clauses provide multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for subsequent scoring, extending the evaluation beyond simple result judgment to a comprehensive examination of the defect analysis process. The scoring module employs a combination of preliminary scoring and final value adjustment. Initial scores are determined based on defect identification, inspection category judgment, and inspection standards and clauses. These initial scores are then optimized through textual descriptions of defect information. This tiered scoring method ensures both quantitative accuracy and adequate consideration of the standardization and professionalism of responses, resulting in more scientific and reasonable scoring results. The scoring output module clearly distinguishes between those who pass and those who fail based on the final scores, effectively identifying personnel with qualified quality evaluation capabilities. This provides reliable talent support for the quality control of building curtain wall construction, helping to improve the overall construction quality of the curtain wall project from the perspective of inspection and testing personnel capabilities, and reducing project risks caused by insufficient construction quality evaluation capabilities.

[0020] In some specific embodiments of this application, the database construction module also stores the difficulty coefficients corresponding to each axis coordinate; The difficulty coefficients include the difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection standards and clauses. The difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses range from [0,1].

[0021] Understandably, quantifying the difficulty across different dimensions allows for a precise assessment of defect complexity, providing a scientific basis for resource allocation and ensuring that high-difficulty defects receive greater professional support. Simultaneously, standardized difficulty coefficients facilitate a unified understanding of defect difficulty across different personnel and scenarios, improving communication efficiency and collaboration accuracy. Furthermore, this coefficient system can serve as a crucial indicator for evaluating training effectiveness and grading capabilities, helping relevant personnel identify learning priorities and areas for improvement, thus promoting a systematic enhancement of overall technical proficiency.

[0022] Specifically, the difficulty coefficient setting needs to comprehensively consider multiple dimensions. The difficulty coefficient for defect information can be quantified based on the number, complexity, concealment, and impact on the overall structural safety of defects. For example, common and easily identifiable appearance defects can be assigned a lower coefficient, while structural defects, fireproofing defects, and lightning protection defects that involve the stability and safety of the structural system can be assigned a higher coefficient. The difficulty coefficient for inspection categories is quantified based on the inspection categories in the engineering quality inspection standards. For example, material inspection can be assigned a lower coefficient, while fireproofing inspection, lightning protection inspection, node and connection inspection, and installation quality inspection can be assigned a higher coefficient. The difficulty coefficient for inspection basis standards and clauses is related to the number of clauses in the defect judgment basis standards, the correlation between clauses, the abstractness of the clause content, and the ease of understanding and applying the clauses. The difficulty coefficient for citing a single, clear clause is lower, while the coefficient is higher for clauses that require the integration of multiple complex and related clauses or clauses that are ambiguous or difficult to understand. By scoring each of these three dimensions within the range of [0,1], and by using weighted averaging or other methods according to the actual application scenario requirements, the scores of each dimension can be integrated into a comprehensive difficulty coefficient to comprehensively and objectively reflect the processing difficulty of the axis coordinates.

[0023] In some specific embodiments of this application, when the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it includes: The preset verification requirements include a range of difficulty levels; Within the range of the aforementioned difficulty coefficient, the difficulty coefficient of defect information, the difficulty coefficient of inspection category, and the difficulty coefficient of inspection basis standards and clauses are randomly selected, and axis coordinates that match the selected difficulty coefficients are extracted from the database construction module. Among them, the sum of the difficulty coefficients of randomly selecting defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses is within the range of difficulty coefficients.

[0024] Understandably, by limiting the difficulty coefficient and value range, the overall difficulty of proficiency testing questions can be flexibly adjusted to meet the needs of different levels of proficiency testing: for proficiency testing with a low difficulty coefficient (☆), a smaller difficulty and value range can be set to extract questions with lower identification difficulty, helping testing personnel complete basic competency confirmation; for proficiency testing with a medium to high difficulty coefficient (☆☆ or ☆☆☆), a larger difficulty and value range can be set to extract questions with higher processing difficulty, evaluating and selecting testing personnel with stronger professional competence. The dynamic question selection mechanism in this invention avoids the problem of insufficient competency differentiation caused by all personnel using questions of the same difficulty level, and can flexibly control the overall difficulty of the questions according to the objectives, improving the adaptability of proficiency testing.

[0025] Specifically, the difficulty range can be set according to different proficiency testing needs. For example, proficiency testing (☆) can be set to [0.6, 1.2], proficiency testing (☆☆) to [1.2, 2.1], and proficiency testing (☆☆☆) to [2.1, 2.7]. Each user can also customize the range according to their own evaluation criteria to adapt to different proficiency testing needs, ensure that the difficulty of the selected questions matches the goal of proficiency testing, and ensure that the proficiency testing results can accurately reflect the true level of the person being tested.

[0026] In some specific embodiments of this application, when the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it further includes: The total number of defects corresponding to the randomly selected axis coordinates is within the preset defect number range.

[0027] Understandably, by setting a predetermined range for the number of defects, the scale of the verification questions can be standardized, avoiding result deviations caused by excessive differences in the number of questions. Too few questions may fail to accurately reflect capabilities due to random errors, while too many questions will lead to excessively long verification times, increasing the fatigue of the personnel being verified and thus affecting their performance. A standardized range of questions can ensure the standardization of the verification process, allowing all personnel to complete the test under the same question intensity, thus ensuring the fairness of the results.

[0028] Specifically, the preset range of the number of defects can be flexibly set according to the proficiency testing requirements of different difficulty levels. For example, a smaller range of the number of defects can be set for proficiency testing (☆), and a larger range of the number of defects can be set for proficiency testing (☆☆☆). This can not only adapt to the proficiency testing requirements of different difficulty levels, but also ensure that the number of questions for proficiency testing of the same difficulty level is uniform, and maintain the consistency of the testing standards.

[0029] In some specific embodiments of this application, the basic information of the person to be verified includes: Personnel code, name of affiliated institution, years of service, professional title level, and type of qualification certification.

[0030] Understandably, collecting this multi-dimensional basic information can, on the one hand, create a clear characteristic profile of the participants in the verification process, which will facilitate the subsequent analysis of the distribution patterns of the proficiency verification results for personnel with different professional backgrounds and professional titles, and summarize the competency gaps of personnel at different levels, thereby providing data support for carrying out targeted professional training.

[0031] In some specific embodiments of this application, the scoring module is configured to determine a preliminary score for the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection basis standards and clauses, and to obtain the initial score value, including: A baseline score is assigned to each defect corresponding to a randomly selected axis coordinate; wherein, the baseline score for a defect-free defect is lower than the baseline score for a defect-containing defect, and the baseline score for a defect with fewer defects is lower than the baseline score for a defect with more defects; the sum of the baseline scores is a preset complete baseline score; The system matches the defects of each axis coordinate in the responses of the personnel to be verified with the preset defects. If there is a match and the inspection category, inspection standard and clause are all correct, a full benchmark score is assigned. If the defect matches but the inspection category is judged incorrectly, or the inspection standard and clause are incomplete or incorrect, a partial benchmark score is assigned. If the defect does not match, zero points are assigned. The partial benchmark score is a preset proportion of the full benchmark score. Calculate the sum of the scores for all answer axis coordinates, and use the sum of the scores as the initial score value.

[0032] Understandably, this invention can accurately address the different accuracy rates of responses from personnel being verified. Defect identification reflects the personnel's basic ability to judge defects, inspection category judgment reflects the types of inspections used by personnel in their daily work to identify such defects, and the determination of inspection standards and clauses outlines the standards and clauses that personnel should follow when preparing inspection reports. Distinguishing and assigning scores to these three aspects allows for a more detailed reflection of the personnel's ability levels at different assessment stages, avoiding scoring errors caused by directly judging a single mistake. This ensures that the initial score more accurately reflects the actual completion of the responses, laying a precise foundation for subsequent final score adjustments.

[0033] Furthermore, the preset ratio is used to determine the proportion of the baseline score assigned when the axis coordinate defect situation in the response of the person to be verified matches but the inspection category judgment is incorrect, or the inspection basis standards and clauses are incomplete or incorrect. This part of the baseline score is the full baseline score multiplied by the preset ratio.

[0034] In some specific embodiments of this application, the scoring module is configured to adjust the initial scoring value based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain a final scoring value, including: The textual description of the defect information of each axis coordinate in the response of the person to be verified is semantically matched with the preset standard description template to obtain the description matching degree; The description deduction value is determined based on the description matching degree; The final score is calculated by combining the deduction value from the initial score with the description.

[0035] Understandably, adjusting the initial score through semantic matching can assess the professional ability of the personnel being verified to describe defects. This professional ability is a crucial indicator of the professionalism in evaluating the quality of building curtain wall construction, and the described content is an important part of the inspection report, providing clear and accurate foundational data for subsequent rectification and project acceptance. Therefore, incorporating this aspect into the score adjustment dimension allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the personnel's overall professional capabilities, ensuring the scoring results better align with actual work requirements and further enhancing the completeness and scientific rigor of the evaluation system. Higher description matching results in lower deductions, and vice versa. Subtracting the total deductions from the initial total score yields the final score. This adjustment process is logically clear, simple to calculate, and easily automated by the system, improving the efficiency of proficiency testing.

[0036] In a specific embodiment of this application, when the scoring module adjusts the initial scoring value based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain the final scoring value, the specific process is as follows: First, the textual description of the defect information filled in by the person to be verified for a certain axis coordinate (e.g., "air bubbles exist in the sealant between panels"), namely "air bubbles with a diameter greater than 3mm and a length exceeding 100mm are visible on the surface of the sealant at the glass panel connection," is semantically matched with the preset standard description template "[component name] [location] [material / construction] [defect], [specific quantitative indicators]." The system calculates the similarity between the two in terms of the use of professional terminology, defect feature description, and accuracy of quantitative data, and obtains a description matching degree of 85%. Subsequently, according to the preset matching degree and deduction value correspondence rules (e.g., no deduction for 90%-100% description matching degree, 2 deductions for 80%-89%, 5 deductions for 70%-79%; no deduction for 100% clause matching degree, 3 deductions for 80%-99%, and 10 deductions for less than 80%), the deduction value for the textual description of the defect information of this axis coordinate is determined to be 2 points. Assuming the initial score for this axis coordinate is 20 points (total score is set to 20 points), the final score is the initial score of 20 points minus the deduction of 2 points, resulting in a final score of 18 points.

[0037] In some specific embodiments of this application, the step of obtaining the final score based on the deduction value and the initial score of the defect information text description includes: Subtract the deduction value for the textual description of the defect information from the initial score to obtain the final score.

[0038] It is understandable that the calculation method of deducting points item by item in this invention is simple, clear, and logically sound. It can directly reflect the score of each axis coordinate answering stage, making it easy for the person being verified to clearly understand their own points of deduction. It also makes it easy for the system to automatically and quickly complete the calculation, effectively improving the scoring efficiency, avoiding the result error caused by complex calculations, and making the scoring process open and transparent, thus improving the credibility of the scoring results.

[0039] In some specific embodiments of this application, when the scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as either "passed verification personnel" or "failed verification personnel" based on the final score, it includes: Output the personnel whose final score is greater than or equal to the preset score threshold as those who have passed the verification. Those whose final score is less than the preset score threshold will be output as those who have failed the verification.

[0040] Understandably, setting clear preset scoring thresholds allows for intuitive and rapid determination of verification results, reducing biases caused by subjective judgments and ensuring clear and unambiguous output. This aligns with the rapid classification needs following batch verification of personnel and facilitates the development of different management and training programs for those who pass and fail, thereby improving the efficiency of proficiency testing results in practical application. Users can also customize and adjust the preset scoring thresholds according to their own personnel competency management standards to adapt to the pass / fail criteria in different scenarios, ensuring that the results meet their specific needs.

[0041] Those skilled in the art will understand that embodiments of this application can be provided as methods, systems, or computer program goods. Therefore, this application can take the form of a completely hardware embodiment, a completely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, this application can take the form of a computer program goods embodied on one or more computer-usable storage media (including, but not limited to, disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) containing computer-usable program code.

[0042] This application is described with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program goods according to embodiments of this application. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, embedded processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, generate instructions for implementing the flowchart... Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in one or more boxes.

[0043] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction means, which are implemented in a process Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The function specified in one or more boxes.

[0044] These computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing equipment to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable equipment to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable equipment for implementing the process. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps of the function specified in one or more boxes.

[0045] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention and not to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the above embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications or equivalent substitutions can still be made to the specific implementation of the present invention. Any modifications or equivalent substitutions that do not depart from the spirit and scope of the present invention should be covered within the scope of protection of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A capability verification system for evaluating the construction quality of building curtain walls, characterized in that, include: The database construction module is configured to store the axial coordinates, defect information, inspection categories, inspection standards and clauses of the building curtain wall; The verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, so that the personnel to be verified can identify and verify defects. The input module is configured to input the basic information of the person to be verified and their response information; wherein, the response information includes defect identification, textual description of defect information, judgment of inspection category, and determination of inspection basis standards and clauses; The scoring module is configured to determine an initial score for the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection standard and clause, and obtain an initial score value; and to adjust the initial score value based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain a final score value. The scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as those who have passed verification and those who have failed verification based on the final score.

2. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 1, characterized in that, The database construction module also stores the difficulty coefficients corresponding to the coordinates of each axis. The difficulty coefficients include the difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection standards and clauses. The difficulty coefficients for defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses range from [0,1].

3. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 2, characterized in that, When the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it includes: The preset verification requirements include a range of difficulty levels; Within the range of the difficulty coefficient, randomly select the difficulty coefficient of defect information, the difficulty coefficient of inspection category, and the difficulty coefficient of inspection basis standards and clauses, and extract the axis coordinates that match the selected difficulty coefficient from the database construction module; Among them, the sum of the difficulty coefficients of randomly selecting defect information, inspection category, and inspection basis standards and clauses is within the range of difficulty coefficients.

4. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 3, characterized in that, When the verification module is configured to randomly select several axis coordinates from the database construction module according to preset verification requirements, it further includes: The total number of defects corresponding to the randomly selected axis coordinates is within the preset defect number range.

5. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 4, characterized in that, The basic information of the person to be verified includes: Personnel code, name of affiliated institution, years of service, professional title level, and type of qualification certification.

6. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 4, characterized in that, The scoring module is configured to determine an initial score for the personnel to be verified based on the defect identification, inspection category judgment, inspection standards and clauses, and to obtain the initial score value, including: A baseline score is assigned to each defect corresponding to a randomly selected axis coordinate; wherein, the baseline score for a defect-free defect is lower than the baseline score for a defect-containing defect, and the baseline score for a defect with fewer defects is lower than the baseline score for a defect with more defects; the sum of the baseline scores is a preset complete baseline score; The system matches the defects of each axis coordinate in the responses of the personnel to be verified with the preset defects. If there is a match and the inspection category, inspection standard and clause are all correct, a full benchmark score is assigned. If the defect matches but the inspection category is judged incorrectly, or the inspection standard and clause are incomplete or incorrect, a partial benchmark score is assigned. If the defect does not match, zero points are assigned. The partial benchmark score is a preset proportion of the full benchmark score. Calculate the sum of the scores for all answer axis coordinates, and use the sum of the scores as the initial score value.

7. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 6, characterized in that, The scoring module is configured to adjust the initial scoring value based on the textual description of the defect information to obtain the final scoring value, including: The textual description of the defect information of each axis coordinate in the answer provided by the person to be verified is semantically matched with a preset standard description template to obtain the description matching degree; the description deduction value is determined based on the description matching degree. The final score is obtained based on the deduction value and the initial score.

8. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 7, characterized in that, When obtaining the final score based on the deduction value and the initial score, the following is included: Subtracting the deductions for each defect from the initial score yields the final score.

9. The building curtain wall construction quality evaluation capability verification system according to claim 8, characterized in that, When the scoring output module is configured to output the personnel to be verified as those who passed verification and those who failed verification based on the final score, it includes: Output the personnel whose final score is greater than or equal to the preset score threshold as those who have passed the verification. Those whose final score is less than the preset score threshold will be output as those who have failed the verification.

Images