Assembly process Acceptance testing

In general, a development process starts with an analysis of system requirements, followed by design on system level. Subsequently, the system is decomposed into its components and the components are designed and developed. At this stage, manufacturing of first samples of the components is started. If the components pass funcrtion tests, the parts are assembled and the complete system is tested. After a subsequent acceptance test, this process leads to the final product. 

In the development of the process automation and control system, the required testing of that control system and the factory-assembled components, and the process simulation program must be established with the general functional specifications. In an API facility, many of the control systems perform process functions that require strict validation. The functional description for the automation system should require a complete factory acceptance test (FAT). This test should simulate the entire process and process failures and alarms. The FAT should also check and verify that the control system cabinets and controllers operate as designed. The factory acceptance testing of the process automation system prior to shipment and installation in the field is a critical step in the validation and start-up of the facility. 

The alternative solution presented adds more value than traditional solutions that are currently available on the market. This claim is based on the acceptance of the conceptual design solution by the OEM on a vehicle-level basis (prototype components were fabricated and tested by the target OEM). Factors considered by the OEM included cost, weight, overall vehicle-level performance, and compatibility with the automobile manufacturing and assembly process. 

Extensive full-scale experiments were undertaken in attempts to reproduce the failure (Games and Waterhouse, 1974 Batstone, 1975). These employed a similar pipe assembly (as shown in Fig. 42.4) as well as other experiments and bellows tests evaluated at the same and more severe operating conditions. All these experiments were unable to reproduce the failure process accepted. 

In both these specifications are test methods that are not approved for accept/reject criteria, but that produce data that is useful for process development, shows what really happens during the assembly process, and if tested correctly meets the most stringent of evaluations to modern measurement analysis.These are tests E, F, and G for the J-STD-002 and test F for the J-STD-003.The test protocol detailed in this chapter is designed to change the test status of the wetting balance to one capable of producing accept/reject data, and more importantly, to provide accurate data for process improvements. 

Some would say that this is the current state of the art. Much of the necessary library could be assembled from test systems that have been extensively evaluated and have already undergone extensive validation (Gad, 2000, 2001). Three critical steps must be taken for the eventual fulfillment of these objectives (1) acceptance of a scientific approach to the problem of safety assessment (2) development of an operative validation and acceptance process for new test procedures (3) clear enunciation of an acceptance criterion for new test designs by regulatory authorities. 

Once the reliability of an alternative method has been confirmed in a validation study, its relevance as a replacement for an in vivo toxicity test must be assessed. As noted earlier, the assessment of relevance addresses the question Is the performance of the method good enough to allow its acceptance as a replacement for a given in vivo test Answering this question requires assembly and review of as much information as possible about the performance of the alternative method and the in vivo test it is intended to replace. This review process must ultimately allow the formulation of a judgment of whether the alternative method is acceptable or not for its intended use. Reviewed next is the information that must be considered in order to judge the relevance of an alternative method, and provide recommendations on how to establish objective benchmarks that can be used to help make this judgment. 

---