1 resultado para Procedure call
em Digital Commons - Montana Tech
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (18)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (20)
- Andina Digital - Repositorio UASB-Digital - Universidade Andina Simón Bolívar (4)
- Aquatic Commons (4)
- Archive of European Integration (59)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (2)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (18)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (13)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (2)
- Bibloteca do Senado Federal do Brasil (9)
- Blue Tiger Commons - Lincoln University - USA (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (71)
- Boston College Law School, Boston College (BC), United States (2)
- Boston University Digital Common (5)
- Brock University, Canada (6)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- CaltechTHESIS (2)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (32)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (35)
- Center for Jewish History Digital Collections (3)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (24)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (5)
- Coffee Science - Universidade Federal de Lavras (2)
- Collection Of Biostatistics Research Archive (2)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (60)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (3)
- Department of Computer Science E-Repository - King's College London, Strand, London (3)
- DI-fusion - The institutional repository of Université Libre de Bruxelles (3)
- Digital Archives@Colby (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (3)
- Digital Commons - Montana Tech (1)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons @ Winthrop University (1)
- Digital Repository at Iowa State University (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (11)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (2)
- Duke University (7)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (1)
- Funes: Repositorio digital de documentos en Educación Matemática - Colombia (1)
- Gallica, Bibliotheque Numerique - Bibliothèque nationale de France (French National Library) (BnF), France (1)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (4)
- Harvard University (1)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (7)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (39)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (4)
- Lume - Repositório Digital da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (15)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (8)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (7)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (3)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (3)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (85)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (110)
- RDBU - Repositório Digital da Biblioteca da Unisinos (1)
- ReCiL - Repositório Científico Lusófona - Grupo Lusófona, Portugal (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (7)
- Repositório Digital da UNIVERSIDADE DA MADEIRA - Portugal (2)
- Repositório Digital da Universidade Municipal de São Caetano do Sul - USCS (2)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (95)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (2)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (6)
- South Carolina State Documents Depository (10)
- Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico (2)
- Universidad de Alicante (3)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (6)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (22)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (1)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (2)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (2)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (4)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (5)
- University of Connecticut - USA (2)
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (1)
Resumo:
Non-uniformity of steps within a flight is a major risk factor for falls. Guidelines and requirements for uniformity of step risers and tread depths assume the measurement system provides precise dimensional values. The state-of-the-art measurement system is a relatively new method, known as the nosing-to-nosing method. It involves measuring the distance between the noses of adjacent steps and the angle formed with the horizontal. From these measurements, the effective riser height and tread depth are calculated. This study was undertaken for the purpose of evaluating the measurement system to determine how much of total measurement variability comes from the step variations versus that due to repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) associated with the measurers. Using an experimental design quality control professionals call a measurement system experiment, two measurers measured all steps in six randomly selected flights, and repeated the process on a subsequent day. After marking each step in a flight in three lateral places (left, center, and right), the measurers took their measurement. This process yielded 774 values of riser height and 672 values of tread depth. Results of applying the Gage R&R ANOVA procedure in Minitab software indicated that the R&R contribution to riser height variability was 1.42%; and to tread depth was 0.50%. All remaining variability was attributed to actual step-to-step differences. These results may be compared with guidelines used in the automobile industry for measurement systems that consider R&R less than 1% as an acceptable measurement system; and R&R between 1% and 9% as acceptable depending on the application, the cost of the measuring device, cost of repair, or other factors.