Computer Vision Zone Violation Detection for Workplace Hazards

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Manual monitoring for safety hazards in work environments is laborious, time-consuming, and subjective, often failing to identify potential hazards before accidents occur, leading to inefficiencies and liability concerns.

Innovation Solution

An automated safety monitoring system using computer vision techniques, including deep-learning models, to detect objects and determine their spatial positions within predefined zones, generating reports on violations and enabling faster remediation of safety hazards.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual monitoring is used to detect safety hazards, then inspectors can identify dangerous conditions, but the process is laborious, time-consuming, and subjective

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection accuracyVSAvoidmonitoring time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical inspection with an automated computer vision system using cameras and image processing algorithms. The system captures images of the work environment, automatically detects objects and their positions, determines zone violations, and generates reports without human intervention, thereby eliminating the time-consuming and subjective nature of manual monitoring while maintaining or improving detection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Reliability

If manual inspection is performed to ensure safety standards, then hazards can be identified, but the process lacks standardization and consistency

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection consistencyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces variable human judgment with a standardized automated system. The computer vision system applies consistent algorithms and criteria to all inspections, ensuring uniform detection standards across different times and inspectors. The system processes images through defined logical operations to determine zone violations, eliminating subjectivity and improving consistency while the complexity is managed through software automation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Productivity

If automated computer vision system is implemented, then monitoring efficiency and standardization improve, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemonitoring efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a multi-functional computer vision system that performs multiple tasks: capturing images, detecting objects, determining positions, identifying zone violations, and generating reports. By consolidating these functions into a single automated system, the patent achieves high monitoring efficiency and standardization while managing complexity through integrated design rather than separate manual processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS11694437B1Computer vision based safety hazard detection
Publication Date: 2023.07.04 AMAZON TECH INC
  • US11694437B1 patent drawing
  • US11694437B1 patent drawing
  • US11694437B1 patent drawing

AI summary

Devices and techniques are generally described for computer vision techniques for safety hazard detection. A frame of image data representing a physical environment is received. In some examples, a first object represented in the frame of image data may be detected. A determination may be made that the first object is of a first class. A first zone represented in the frame of image data may be identified. The first zone may correspond to a ground surface of the physical environment. A determination may be made that the first object at least partially overlaps with the first zone. A first rule associated with the first zone may be determined. The first rule may restrict objects of the first class from being present within the first zone. Output data may be generated indicating that the first object is at least partially within the first zone, in violation of the first rule.