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

Iikka Virkkunen (Corresponding Author), Tuomas Koskinen, Suvi Papula, Teemu Sarikka, Hannu Hänninen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    Abstract

    For estimating the probability of detection (POD) in non-destructive evaluation (NDE), there are two standard methods, the so-called â 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 â 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 (â 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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number89
    Number of pages13
    JournalJournal of Nondestructive Evaluation
    Volume38
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2019
    MoE publication typeNot Eligible

    Fingerprint

    Inspection
    Nuclear industry
    Eddy currents
    Welds
    Ultrasonics

    Keywords

    • NDE
    • NDT
    • Non-destructive testing
    • POD
    • Probability of detection
    • Reliability

    Cite this

    Virkkunen, Iikka ; Koskinen, Tuomas ; Papula, Suvi ; Sarikka, Teemu ; Hänninen, Hannu. / Comparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods : A European Viewpoint. In: Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation. 2019 ; Vol. 38, No. 4.
    @article{bb61df6351a440b1b0ff90bb528529d6,
    title = "Comparison of {\^a} Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods: A European Viewpoint",
    abstract = "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.",
    keywords = "NDE, NDT, Non-destructive testing, POD, Probability of detection, Reliability",
    author = "Iikka Virkkunen and Tuomas Koskinen and Suvi Papula and Teemu Sarikka and Hannu H{\"a}nninen",
    year = "2019",
    month = "12",
    doi = "10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z",
    language = "English",
    volume = "38",
    journal = "Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation",
    issn = "0195-9298",
    publisher = "Springer",
    number = "4",

    }

    Comparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods : A European Viewpoint. / Virkkunen, Iikka (Corresponding Author); Koskinen, Tuomas; Papula, Suvi; Sarikka, Teemu; Hänninen, Hannu.

    In: Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. 38, No. 4, 89, 12.2019.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Comparison of â Versus a and Hit/Miss POD-Estimation Methods

    T2 - A European Viewpoint

    AU - Virkkunen, Iikka

    AU - Koskinen, Tuomas

    AU - Papula, Suvi

    AU - Sarikka, Teemu

    AU - Hänninen, Hannu

    PY - 2019/12

    Y1 - 2019/12

    N2 - For estimating the probability of detection (POD) in non-destructive evaluation (NDE), there are two standard methods, the so-called â 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 â 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 (â 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.

    AB - For estimating the probability of detection (POD) in non-destructive evaluation (NDE), there are two standard methods, the so-called â 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 â 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 (â 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.

    KW - NDE

    KW - NDT

    KW - Non-destructive testing

    KW - POD

    KW - Probability of detection

    KW - Reliability

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073004308&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z

    DO - 10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:85073004308

    VL - 38

    JO - Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation

    JF - Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation

    SN - 0195-9298

    IS - 4

    M1 - 89

    ER -