Exova AB, NDT Dpt., Sweden, Joined Jan 2001, 8
Bevel incidence angle (ME paper) and POD
I read with great interest the paper "Bevel Incidence angle requirements for encoded phased arrays" authored by Moles, Kruzic and Ginzel in the last edition of Material Evaluation. Knowing that Michael and Ed are active on this forum, I have a few questions/thoughts I'd like to share.
We happen to work on a POD study for a different application involving the detection of surface or near surface cracks using angled beam UT (fixed angle , no PA). We produced experimental results that are strickingly similar to the results shown in Figure 9 of Moles and al's paper: No clear relationship between amplitude and crack depth (or area) and a large scatter of the values were observed. We came up with the same conclusion regarding the major contribution of the crack angle with respect to the UT beam.
In our case, the "ahat versus a" approach for determining the POD is failing as the method assumes increasing amplitude for increasing crack depth (or area). The question is then how to quantify/demonstrate the reliability of the UT procedure? We are going now for the 29/29 approach used for example by Airbus (see "Application of POD Analysis at Airbus" in this issue of ndt.net). We should be able to prove that we have a 90% POD with 95% reliability for the crack depth defining the acceptance level. However, I feel that this is not totally satisfying: if a technique is very sensitive to a type of defects but shows in average similar response for small and large defects, can it be defined as reliable and can its reliability be quantified?
I would be curious to read if anybody had to work around similar argumentation.
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1252
Re: Bevel incidence angle (ME paper) and POD In Reply to Christophe Mattei at 11:27 Feb-04-2010 (Opening).
It is interesting to learn that this problem exists in other venues. You indicated that
"ahat versus a" is failing. But as I understand it, this has its underlying principles based on a linear relationship between "ahat" and "a" (sized vs true size). But that is not the same as the amplitude responses having a linear relationship to flaw size. I would think that in order to provide "ahat" and "a" analysis you would need to have some technique for sizing the indications and comparing this to the destructively determined sizes. There is still a threshold to concern yourself with (i.e. some amplitude below which responses are not sized). But if no real sizing has been done and you are simply using the threshold amplitude to indicate detections, then I would think that the Hit/Miss approach is perhaps more appropriate. The concept of Probability of Rejection introduced in DNV OS F101- 2007 seems to fit better with the "ahat vesrus a" concepts.
Exova AB, NDT Dpt., Sweden, Joined Jan 2001, 8
Re: Bevel incidence angle (ME paper) and POD In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 16:23 Feb-04-2010 .
You are right: the procedure we are looking at (detection of fatigue cracks in train axles) does not call for sizing and the hit-miss technique is certainly more appropriate. My understanding of the 29/29 method is that it is a corollary of the hit-miss that insures the statistical reliability of the final result for a specific crack size.
We choose the "a hat versus a" for economical reason as the number of sample needed is much lower and also because the end-user is interested in crack size even if sizing is not required . By failing, I meant that the linear regression of the ln(a hat) vs ln(a) gives in our case a zero or negative slope, leading to a failure of the model when computing the POD.
Reformulating my original question, I did not really find any guidelines for choosing the right technique in Berens MIL Handbook on NDE reliability. Your paper and our results show that in some cases, the "a hat versus a" is not valid and I wonder which quantitative criteria should be used in order to assess the best technique for POD evaluation.
Next generation for Phased Array UT is here now with FMC/TFM! Have higher
resolution imaging, impr
oved signal to noise ratio, characterize, size and analyze
defects better with access to several wave mode views and save raw FMC data for
higher quality analysis. Some of the benefits are:
- Beautiful Image! Easier to understand what you're looking at
- Completely focused in entire image or volume
- Much easier to define setups before inspection
- Easier to decipher geometry echoes from real defects
- Oriented defects (e.g. cracks) are imaged better
- See image from different wave modes from one FMC inspection
- FMC data can be reprocessed/analyzed without going back to the field
M2M PANTHER is a phased-array equipment designed for both desktop and industrial applications, offer
ing unparalleled performance in a compact unit. It combines the speed required for industrial integrated Phased-Array Ultrasound (PAUT) solutions, with the most complete set of total focusing method (TFM) imaging techniques, making it the ultimate tool for R&D and procedure qualification.
NEW! The PragmaPro Instrument Platform
The PragmaPro is based on a modular cartridge technology and supports various NDT
ities such as UT, PAUT, ECT and many more. This new platform is
based on a machined, powder-coated aluminum frame for shock-proofness, best sealing
qualities and maximum heat dissipation. This is practical to extend the outdoor
temperature range and/or to extend the power injected in the transducers. The
PragmaPro is aiming at a very wide range of applications, such as weld scanning,
corrosion mapping and composite testing.
IntraPhase Athena Phased Array System
The Athena Phased Array system, manufactured by WesDyne NDE Products & Technology, consists of a pha
sed array acquisition system and PC running IntraSpect software. A PC is used to perform acquisition, analysis and storage of the data. System hardware is capable of operating up to four data sets with any combination of phased array or conventional UT probes. NOW AVAILABLE IN 64-64 CONFIGURATION.