where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -
1060 views
Technical Discussions
Christophe Mattei
Consultant
Exova AB, NDT Dpt., Sweden, Joined Jan 2001, 8

Christophe Mattei

Consultant
Exova AB, NDT Dpt.,
Sweden,
Joined Jan 2001
8
11:27 Feb-04-2010
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.

Christophe

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1287

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1287
16:23 Feb-04-2010
Re: Bevel incidence angle (ME paper) and POD
In Reply to Christophe Mattei at 11:27 Feb-04-2010 (Opening).

Christophe
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.

 
 Reply 
 
Christophe Mattei
Consultant
Exova AB, NDT Dpt., Sweden, Joined Jan 2001, 8

Christophe Mattei

Consultant
Exova AB, NDT Dpt.,
Sweden,
Joined Jan 2001
8
18:55 Feb-04-2010
Re: Bevel incidence angle (ME paper) and POD
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 16:23 Feb-04-2010 .

Ed,

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.

Christophe

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

HARDNESS TESTER TKM-459CE combi

TKM-459CE combi applies 2 methods of hardness control: UCI and Leeb. It provides high-accuracy tes
...
ting of metals and alloys as well as items of different sizes and configurations, their hardened layers and galvanic coatings. Device represents results in HB, HRC, HV and others. Shock-, dust- and water-proof housing with intuitive software make this gauge easy to use in all working conditions.
>

ISAFE3 Intrinsically Safe Sensor System

ISAFE3 intrinsically safe sensor system of Vallen Systeme is especially targeted at the petrochemica
...
l - as well as oil and gas transportation industry. The sensor system is designed for permanent monitoring or periodic inspection tasks. Sensors are available for different AE-frequency ranges optimized for corrosion and fatigue crack detection and other applications. The ISAFE 3 sensor system consists of an AE-sensor (model ISAS3) certified according to ATEX/IEC for installation in zone 0, gas group IIC, IP68, 20 to +60 °C, and a signal isolator (model SISO3) certified for installation in zone 2. An ISAS3 sensor can be mounted in atmosphere or submerged, e.g. in water or crude oil. It is supported by mounting tools for temporary (magnets) or permanent (welded) installation. ISAFE3 supports automatic sensor coupling test and can be used with any AE signal processor supporting 28V supply at 90 mA peak, e.g. Vallen Systeme ASIP-2/A.
>

EKOSCAN Phased Array

In order to always fit your needs, EKOSCAN can manufacture any type of UT transducer, either convent
...
ional or Phased Array. As an ISO 9001: 2015 certified company, EKOSCAN is extremely careful as far a material selection and manufacturing processes are concerned. Our probes guarantee our customers the benefits of latest innovations regarding piezo-composite, backing, impedance adaptation layer, etc. Specific probes for hostile environment: high temperature, high pressure, corrosive environment,etc. Specific probes designed to fit your specific application: optimization of every parameter to guarantee you the best detection.
>

Lyft™: Pulsed Eddy Current Reinvented

PEC Reinvented—CUI Programs Redefined Corrosion under insulation (CUI) is possibly the greatest u
...
nresolved asset integrity problem in the industry. Current methods for measuring wall thickness with liftoff, without removing insulation, all have severe limitations. Eddyfi introduces Lyft — a reinvented, high-performance pulsed eddy current (PEC) solution. The patent- pending system features a state-of-the-art portable instrument, real- time C-scan imaging, fast data acquisition with grid-mapping and dynamic scanning modes, and flexibility with long cables. It can also scan through thick metal and insulation, as well as aluminum, stainless steel, and galvanized steel weather jackets. Who else but Eddyfi to reinvent an eddy current technique and redefine CUI programs. Got Lyft?
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window