Verification meaning

Verification means confirmation by examination or direct measurement that specified requirements are met. 

It should be noted that some States Parties have argued that the specification in Article VI, paragraph 2, of the chemicals and facilities subject to verification means that a State Party may regulate only these and not go any further in its regulation of toxic chemicals. This view appears to be contradictory to the text of the provision, which states a broad rule and indicates that the verification of specific chemicals and facilities is a means to this end. The point is in any event made moot by the broader obligations introduced by Security Council Resolution 1540. 

Verifiable Can the requirements/design/S/W architecture/code be verified using the proposed means (i.e., is a test possible, analysis possible ) does the proposed verification means provide adequate coverage of normal and robust properties Proper test results generally imply verifiability - but by then it is usually too late to find out that the requirement is not verifiable. 

Curing an adhesive in any joint is usually a time-temperature-pressure function. No matter how these three variables are controlled, the documentation-verification means are essentially the same. Controlling the length of cure time can be by manual or automatic timing devices. Verification is usually documented on a cure chart taken from a temperature and/or pressure recorder. Recording of pressure and temperature are made in the same maimer. 

As stated earlier, verification means checking of the written correctness and the technical accuracy of the EOP. Each concept is discussed briefly below. 

Verification and validation of the designed model is an essential step. Verification means that the behavior of the model should agree with the behavior of the system under study. Validation, however, refers to the absolute values the model produces. For dynamic systems... 

In the safety verifications, mean values of mechanical properties of existing materials derived from in situ tests and other sources of information, like available documentation or relevant sources, shall be used, taking into account the confidence factors (CFs) specified in 3.5 of Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-3 2005). Conversely, for new materials, nominal properties shall be used without modification by confidence factor. The code also states that in case the structural system, comprising both existing and new structural elements, can be made to fulfill the requirements of EN1998-1-2004, the verifications may be carried out in accordance with the provisions therein. 

For conventional probes, acoustic verification aims at characterizing the beam pattern, beam crossing, beam angle, sensitivity, etc., which are key characteristics in the acoustic interaction between acoustic beam and defect. For array transducers, obviously, it is also a meaning to check the acoustic capabilities of the probe. That is to valid a domain (angle beam, focus, etc.) in which the probe can operate satisfactorily. 

The results of corrosion surveys are received by the Surveyor in an agreed format using Forms TMl - TM8, preferably with the LR software freely issued to the approved firms. The report will highlight any areas where corrosion has gone beyond the permitted maximum diminution, which may be as low as 15% of the nominal thickness for a single item, and will also identify areas of "substantial corrosion T.e., any in excess of 75% of the permitted maximum. Corrosion in excess of that permitted means that the item has to be replaced. Any areas of corrosion deemed to be "substantial" are recorded for annual inspection. The Surveyor will review the completed report for verification and confirmation of the completeness of the thickness survey. 

Mercury thermometers are subject to separation of the mercury column or to inclusion of bubbles of the fiU gas. These may result from shipping and handling and cause a scale offset which can usually be seen upon visual examination, and they are always recogni2ed by a 0°C verification check. Manufacturers will suggest means by which these temporary defects may be cured. 

Membrane Cliaraeterization MF membranes are rated bvtliix and pore size. Microfiltration membranes are imiqiielv testable bv direct examination, but since the number of pores that rnav be obsen ed directlv bv microscope is so small, microscopic pore size determination is rnainlv useful for membrane research and verification of other pore-size-determining methods. Furthermore, the most critical dimension rnav not be obseiA able from the surface. Few MF membranes have neat, cvlindrical pores. Indirect means of measurement are generallv superior. Accurate characterization of MF membranes is a continuing research topic for which interested parties should consult the current literature. 

Another potential problem is due to rotor instability caused by gas dynamic forces. The frequency of this occurrence is non-synchronous. This has been described as aerodynamic forces set up within an impeller when the rotational axis is not coincident with the geometric axis. The verification of a compressor train requires a test at full pressure and speed. Aerodynamic cross-coupling, the interaction of the rotor mechanically with the gas flow in the compressor, can be predicted. A caution flag should be raised at this point because the full-pressure full-speed tests as normally conducted are not Class IASME performance tests. This means the staging probably is mismatched and can lead to other problems [22], It might also be appropriate to caution the reader this test is expensive. 

After a satisfactory verification film is produced, an assembly may be fabricated specifically for destructive inspection to validate that the verification film was accurate. This correlation allows the use of verification film rather than more expensive destructive inspection for future changes such as duplicate tool fabrication and tool or detail modification. Simple assemblies are usually not destructively inspected because of high confidence that the verification film is entirely representative of the expected bondlines. Complex or large parts may not be destructively inspected because of the cost of the details and assembly time. In these cases other means of validating the verification film are used. Meticulous pre-bond detail and post-bond assembly thickness measurements may be sufficient to prove bondline thickness control. Ultrasonic inspection and X-ray photography (discussed previously) may be sufficient to prove that details are in the correct places and bonds are good. 

By producing defining specifications that prescribe requirements for products or services and also the means by which these requirements are to be verified in-house in terms of the inspections, tests, analyses, audits, reviews, evaluations, and other means of verification... 

By producing separate verification specifications that define which features and characteristics of the product or service are to be verified and the means by which such verification is to be carried out... 

Definition of the verification activities that are to be performed to qualify or validate the design and those which need to be performed on every product in production as a means of ensuring that the qualified design standard has been maintained. 

Do provide a means of tracing the results of verification activities to the characteristics specified in the product specification. 

It should also not be assumed that these requirements are only intended for implementation by a department with the title Inspection or Test. Whenever a product is supplied, produced, or repaired, rebuilt, modified, or otherwise changed, it should be subject to verification that it conforms with the prescribed requirements and any deficiencies corrected before being released for use. That is what control means. Control is not just the inspection part of the process and hence quality control , which for years was the name given to inspection departments, was misunderstood. Inspection and test don t control quality. Inspection and test merely measure the quality achieved and pass the results to the producer for remedial action. 

It would be considered prudent to prohibit the premature release of product if you did not have an adequate traceability system in place. If in fact any nonconformities in a component will be detected by the end product tests, it may be worth allowing production to commence without the receipt tests being available, in which case the tests will only be confidence checks and not verification checks. If only one product is received and released prior to verification one would think that, as the requirement applies prior to verification, there is no need to positively identify the product to permit recall because you would know where it was if you found it to be nonconforming. However, the nonconformity may have been reported to you by the supplier after delivery. The standard does not stipulate when and by whom the nonconformity may have been detected. If you lose the means of determining conformity by premature release, don t release the product until you have verified it is acceptable. 

To accomplish this, you need to specify either in the quality plan or the documented procedures, the inspections and tests you intend to carry out to verify that the product meets specified requirements. In Part 2 Chapter 4 there is a description of a Design Verification Plan and this includes a specification of the tests and inspections to be performed on each production item as a means of ensuring that the qualified design standard is being maintained. This requires that you produce something like an Acceptance Test Plan which contains, as appropriate, some or all of the following ... 

However, these requirements go further than merely controlling the devices used for measurement. They address the measurements themselves, the selection of the devices for measurement and also apply to devices which create product features, if they are used for product verification purposes. If you rely on jigs, tools, fixtures, templates, patterns, etc. to form shapes or other characteristics and have no other means of verifying the shape achieved, these devices become a means of verification. If you use software to control equipment, simulate the environment or operational conditions, or carry out tests and you rely on that software doing what it is supposed to do, without any separate means of checking the result, the quality of such software becomes critical to product verification. In fact the requirements apply to metrology as a whole rather than being limited to the equipment that is used to obtain the measurement and therefore a more appropriate title of the section would be Control of measurements . 

Should you not use measuring devices in your organization, these requirements will not apply. If your means of verification are limited to visual inspection or professional judgement, as is the case with organizations that deal only with documentation, you will have no devices to control. However, you may use tools or computer software to assist you to determine conformance and these will need to be proven capable of producing a reliable result. 

Provide a means of collecting data from all verification operations. 

The standard does not require you to use statistical techniques but identify the need for them. Within your procedures you will therefore need a means of determining when statistical techniques will be needed to determine product characteristics and process capability. One way of doing this is to use checklists when preparing customer specifications, design specifications, and verification specifications and procedures. These checklists need to prompt the user to state whether the product characteristics or process capability will be determined using statistical techniques and if so which techniques are to be used. 

Any activity which affects the determination of product or service features and characteristics, their specification, achievement, or verification, or means to plan organize, control, assure, or improve them. 

---