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 -