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 -

LECOEUR ELECTRONIQUE
The Specialist of electronics for ultrasonic testing.

959 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, 1261

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1261
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

FD800 Bench Top Flaw Detectors

The bench-top FD800 flaw detector range combines state-of-the-art flaw detection with advanced mater
...
ial thickness capabilities. Designed for use in the laboratory these gauges are the tool you need for all your flaw detecting needs.
>

Research and Applications Development For NDT

The Research and Applications Development (RAD) group is a newly formed team within Acuren dedicat
...
ed to tackling challenging inspection problems. Our focus is the development of novel, field deployable, advanced inspection techniques for use in cases where standard NDT methods are ineffective. We don't wait for new innovations, we engineer them. From concept to commissioning.
>

HD-CR 35 NDT Computed Radiography System

Portable high-resolution CR scanner for all radiography applications - weld testing, profile images
...
and aerospace. No matter what type of radiographic testing you are performing, the unique TreFoc Technology of the HD-CR 35 NDT imaging plate scanner always guarantees the highest image quality.
>

SONOAIR - air-coupled Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection System

For highly attenuating materials, the performance of the system is critical. The ultrasonic sensors,
...
the scanning area and the system settings should be flexibly adapted to the test task and the material. These high expectations are met with the new and modular testing system SONOAIR. With the world’s first air-coupled phased-array UT inspection system SONOAIR we developed a technology that works with up to 4 transmitter and receiver channels with freely configurable square wave burst transmitters as wells as low noise receiving amplifiers.
>

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