Comparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods : A European Viewpoint

Thumbnail Image
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Degree programme
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Volume 38, issue 4
For estimating the probability of detection (POD) in non-destructive evaluation (NDE), there are two standard methods, the so-called a versus a approach and the hit/miss approach. The two approaches have different requirements for the quality and quantity of input data as well as for the underlying NDE method. There is considerable overlap between the methods, and they have different limitations, so it is of interest to study the differences arising from using each methodology. In particular, if the dataset is not ideal, the methodologies may exhibit different problems dealing with various limitations in the data. In this paper, a comparison between a versus a and hit/miss analysis was completed for two different data sets, a manual aerospace eddy-current inspection and a nuclear industry phased array ultrasonic weld inspection using a simplified online tool. It was found that the two standard methods (a vs. a and hit/miss) may give significantly different results, if the true hit/miss decision is based on inspector judgement and not automated signal threshold. The true inspector hit/miss performance shows significant variance that is not attributable to signal amplitude. Model-assisted POD was not able to model the inspector performance due to lack of representative amplitude threshold and difficulties in capturing true signal variance. The paper presents experience from practical cases and may be considered a European viewpoint.
Non-destructive testing, NDT, NDE, Probability of detection, POD, Reliability, DETECTION CAPABILITY, PROBABILITY, DESIGN
Other note
Virkkunen , I , Koskinen , T , Papula , S , Sarikka , T & Hänninen , H 2019 , ' Comparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods : A European Viewpoint ' , Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation , vol. 38 , no. 4 , 89 .