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

dc.contributorAalto-yliopistofi
dc.contributorAalto Universityen
dc.contributor.authorVirkkunen, Iikka
dc.contributor.authorKoskinen, Tuomas
dc.contributor.authorPapula, Suvi
dc.contributor.authorSarikka, Teemu
dc.contributor.authorHänninen, Hannu
dc.contributor.departmentAdvanced Manufacturing and Materials
dc.contributor.departmentVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-07T12:01:07Z
dc.date.available2019-11-07T12:01:07Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-01
dc.description.abstractFor 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.en
dc.description.versionPeer revieweden
dc.format.extent13
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationVirkkunen , 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 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-019-0628-zen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z
dc.identifier.issn0195-9298
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 13023bb3-552a-4303-80cf-49273a7ca550
dc.identifier.otherPURE ITEMURL: https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/13023bb3-552a-4303-80cf-49273a7ca550
dc.identifier.otherPURE LINK: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073004308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.identifier.otherPURE FILEURL: https://research.aalto.fi/files/37453997/Virkkunen2019_Article_ComparisonOf_VersusAAndHitMiss.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/41024
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:aalto-201911076029
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
dc.relation.ispartofseriesJournal of Nondestructive Evaluationen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVolume 38, issue 4en
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.subject.keywordNon-destructive testing
dc.subject.keywordNDT
dc.subject.keywordNDE
dc.subject.keywordProbability of detection
dc.subject.keywordPOD
dc.subject.keywordReliability
dc.subject.keywordDETECTION CAPABILITY
dc.subject.keywordPROBABILITY
dc.subject.keywordDESIGN
dc.titleComparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods : A European Viewpointen
dc.typeA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessäfi
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
Files