Analysis of Reliability and Effectiveness of Repeated Inspections Based on Correlated Probability of Detection

Seonhwa Jung; Youngchan Kim; Dooyoul Lee; Joo-Ho Choi

doi:10.1007/s10921-024-01112-6

journal article·2024-09

Analysis of Reliability and Effectiveness of Repeated Inspections Based on Correlated Probability of Detection

Seonhwa Jung, Youngchan Kim, Dooyoul Lee, Joo-Ho Choi

Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation· Volume 43· Issue 3

Publisher page

Bibliographic record

Abstract

No abstract is available for this record. The assistant can identify its topic from the title, but cannot infer the study’s results.

Source: Not provided · Quality: missing

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (49)

Show source-provided references

1. Lee, D., Yoon, S., Park, J., Eum, S., Cho, H.: Demonstration of model-assisted probability of detection framework for ultrasonic inspection of cracks in compressor blades. NDT & E Int. 128, 102618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10261810.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102618 ↗

2. Park, J., Yang, S., Kwon, H.-J., Kim, H., Lee, D.: Structural reliability analysis of corroded landing gear drag beam considering uncertainties in radiographic thickness measurement. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 42, 76 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-023-00983-510.1007/s10921-023-00983-5 ↗

3. Kutman, M.K., Muftuler, F.Z.B., Harmansah, C., Guldu, O.K.: Use of bacteria as fluorescent penetrant for penetrant testing (PT). J. Nondestruct. Eval. 39, 15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-020-0653-y10.1007/s10921-020-0653-y ↗

4. Rodrigues, D., Picard, D., Duchesne, C., Lauzon-Gauthier, J.: Acousto-ultrasonic inspection of pre-baked carbon anodes: repeatability analysis and assessment of damage detection performance. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 43, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-023-01018-910.1007/s10921-023-01018-9 ↗

5. Wang, R., Bao, B., Wang, W., Zhang, M., Liu, L., Song, K.: Research on remote-field eddy current focusing method for detecting hidden defects in aircraft riveted components. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 42, 95 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-023-01011-210.1007/s10921-023-01011-2 ↗

6. Keller, E., Ray, A.: Real-time health monitoring of mechanical structures. Struct. Health Monit. 2, 191–203 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/147592170303604810.1177/1475921703036048 ↗

7. Güemes, A., Fernandez-Lopez, A., Pozo, A.R., Sierra-Pérez, J.: Structural health monitoring for advanced composite structures: a review. J. Compos. Sci. 4, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs401001310.3390/jcs4010013 ↗

8. Bhandari, R.: Case study of structural health monitoring in India and its benefits. J. Civ. Eng. Sci. Technol. 11, 1–7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.33736/jcest.1769.202010.33736/jcest.1769.2020 ↗

9. U.S. Department of Defense: Department of Defense Joint Service Specification Guide, USAF Structures Bulletin, EN-SB-08-010. U.S. Department of Defense (2008)10.21236/ADA512950 ↗

10. Erland, K.: Quantifying the benefit of redundant fluorescent penetrant inspection. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, pp. 2221–2228. Springer, Boston (1989)10.1007/978-1-4613-0817-1_282 ↗

11. Falcetelli, F., Yue, N., Di Sante, R., Zarouchas, D.: Probability of detection, localization, and sizing: the evolution of reliability metrics in structural health monitoring. Struct. Health Monit. 21, 2990–3017 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921721106078010.1177/14759217211060780 ↗

12. Forsyth, D.S., Fahr, A.: On the independence of multiple inspections and the resulting probability of detection. AIP Conf. Proc. 509(1), 2159–2166 (2000)10.1063/1.1291337 ↗

13. Aldrin, J.C., Annis, C., Sabbagh, H.A., Lindgren, E.A.: Best practices for evaluating the capability of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) and structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques for damage characterization. AIP Conf. Proc. 1706(1), 200002 (2016)10.1063/1.4940646 ↗

14. Brausch, J., Butkus, L., Campbell, D., Mullis, T., Paulk, M.: Recommended Processes and Best Practices for Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) of Safety-of-Flight Structures. Report No. AFRL-RX-WP-TR-2008-4373. Air Force Research Laboratory (2008)

15. Forsyth, D.S.: Structural health monitoring and probability of detection estimation. AIP Conf. Proc. 1706(1), 200004 (2016)10.1063/1.4940648 ↗

16. Shook, B.D., Millwater, H.R., Enright, M.P., Hudak, S.J., Francis, W.L.: Simulation of recurring automated inspections on probability-of-fracture estimates. Struct. Health Monit. 7, 293–307 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/147592170809116910.1177/1475921708091169 ↗

17. Meeker, W.Q., Roach, D., Kessler, S.S.: Statistical methods for probability of detection in structural health monitoring. In: IWSHM 2019 Proceedings, Stanford, CA, USA, 2019 (2019)10.12783/shm2019/32095 ↗

18. Schubert Kabban, C.M., Greenwell, B.M., DeSimio, M.P., Derriso, M.M.: The probability of detection for structural health monitoring systems: repeated measures data. Struct. Health Monit. 14, 252–264 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/147592171456653010.1177/1475921714566530 ↗

19. Kessler, S.S., Dunn, C.T., Swindell, P., Meeker, W.: Detection sensitivity analysis for a potential drop (PD) structural health monitoring (SHM) system. In: IWSHM 2019 Proceedings, Stanford, CA, USA, 2019 (2019)10.12783/shm2019/32219 ↗

20. O’Connor, E.: Quantifying method differences in predicting the probability of detection for structural health monitoring applications. Master of Science (MS) in Statistics, Iowa State University (2019)10.31274/cc-20240624-1181 ↗

21. Rummel, W.D., Christner, B.K., Steve, J.M., Donald, L.L.: Characterization of Structural Assessment Testing. Technical Report. San Antonio Air Logistics Center Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio (1986)

22. Rummel, W.D., Christner, B.K., Long, D.L.: Methodology for analysis and characterization of nondestructive inspection capability data. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, pp. 1769–1776. Springer, Boston (1988)10.1007/978-1-4613-0979-6_109 ↗

23. Lewis, W.H., Sproat, W.H., Dodd, B.D., Hamilton, J.M.: Reliability of Nondestructive Inspections. Technical Report. San Antonio Air Logistics Center Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio (1978)10.21236/ADA072097 ↗

24. Berens, A.P., Hovey, P.W.: Flaw Detection Reliability Criteria: Methods and Results. Report No. AFWAL-TR-84-4022, vol. 1. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Air Force Systems, Dayton (1984)10.21236/ADA142001 ↗

25. Annis, C.: MIL-HDBK-1823A, Nondestructive Evaluation System Reliability Assessment. Department of Defense Handbook. Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton (2009)

26. Meeker, W.Q., Roach, D., Kessler, S.S.: Statistical methods for probability of detection in structural health monitoring. In: Structural Health Monitoring, 2019. DEStech Publications, Inc., Lancaster (2019)10.12783/shm2019/32095 ↗

27. Lee, D., Lim, D., Kim, H., Baek, S.: Bayesian method for estimating initial crack size distribution for probabilistic risk analysis of repairable structural details. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 45, 2356–2370 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.1375110.1111/ffe.13751 ↗

28. Heasler, P.G., Doctor, S.R.: Piping Inspection Round Robin. Report No. NUREG/CR-5068. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (1996)10.2172/219360 ↗

29. Bakdash, J.Z., Marusich, L.R.: Repeated measures correlation. Front. Psychol. 8, 456 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0045610.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456 ↗

30. Boyer, R.R.: An overview on the use of titanium in the aerospace industry. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 213, 103–114 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-5093(96)10233-110.1016/0921-5093(96)10233-1 ↗

31. Peters, M., Kumpfert, J., Ward, C.H., Leyens, C.: Titanium alloys for aerospace applications. Adv. Eng. Mater. 5, 419–427 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.20031009510.1002/adem.200310095 ↗

32. Inagaki, I., Takechi, T., Shirai, Y., Ariyasu, N.: Application and Features of Titanium for the Aerospace Industry. Technical Report, pp. 22–27. Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal (2014)

33. Gomez-Gallegos, A., Mandal, P., Gonzalez, D., Zuelli, N., Blackwell, P.: Studies on titanium alloys for aerospace application. Defect Diffusion Forum 385, 419–423 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/DDF.385.41910.4028/www.scientific.net/DDF.385.419 ↗

34. MatWeb: Material Property Data, Ti–6Al–4V. https://matweb.com/index.aspx

35. Banu, A., Ali, M.Y.: Electrical discharge machining (EDM): a review. Int. J. Eng. Mater. Manuf. 1, 3–10 (2016). https://doi.org/10.26776/ijemm.01.01.2016.0210.26776/ijemm.01.01.2016.02 ↗

36. Li, M., Spencer, F.W., Meeker, W.Q.: Distinguishing between uncertainty and variability in nondestructive evaluation. AIP Conf. Proc. 1430(1), 1725–1732 (2012)10.1063/1.4716420 ↗

37. García-Martín, J., Gómez-Gil, J., Vázquez-Sánchez, E.: Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors 11, 2525–2565 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3390/s11030252510.3390/s110302525 ↗

38. Janousek, L., Capova, K., Yusa, N., Miya, K.: Multiprobe inspection for enhancing sizing ability in eddy current nondestructive testing. IEEE Trans. Magn. 44, 1618–1621 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2008.91654710.1109/TMAG.2008.916547 ↗

39. Hashizume, H., Yamada, Y., Miya, K., Toda, S., Morimoto, K., Araki, Y., Satake, K., Shimizu, N.: Numerical and experimental analysis of eddy current testing for a tube with cracks. IEEE Trans. Magn. 28, 1469–1472 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.12397310.1109/20.123973 ↗

40. Dwivedi, S.K., Vishwakarma, M., Soni, A.: Advances and researches on non destructive testing: a review. Mater. Today Proc. 5, 3690–3698 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.62010.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.620 ↗

41. Berthiau, G., de Barmon, B.: MESSINE: eddy current modeling in CIVA. In: 15th World Congress on Non-destructive Testing, 2000 (2000)

42. Fawzi, T.H., Burke, P.E.: The accurate computation of self and mutual inductances of circular coils. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-97, 464–468 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1978.35450610.1109/TPAS.1978.354506 ↗

43. Berthiau, G., de Barmon, B.: MESSINE: eddy current modeling in CIVA. In: 15th WCNDT, Rome, 2001, pp. 15–21 (2001)

44. Lee, D., Yang, S., Park, J., Baek, S., Kim, S.: Investigation of detectable crack length in a bolt hole using eddy current inspection. Trans. Korean Soc. Mech. Eng. A 41, 729–736 (2017)

45. Olympus Scientific Solutions Americas: Certificate Number 6003685959104, Nortec 600 Eddy Current Flaw Detector Certificate of Calibration. Olympus Scientific Solutions (2020)

46. U.S. Air Force: T.O. 33B-1-2, NDT General Procedures and Process Controls. Technical Order, AFRL/MLS-OL. Tinker AFB (2009)

47. Yosifov, M., Reiter, M., Heupl, S., Gusenbauer, C., Fröhler, B., Fernández-Gutiérrez, R., de Beenhouwer, J., Sijbers, J., Kastner, J., Heinzl, C.: Probability of detection applied to X-ray inspection using numerical simulations. Nondestruct. Test Eval. 37, 536–551 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/10589759.2022.207189210.1080/10589759.2022.2071892 ↗

48. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Core Team. https://www.R-project.org/

49. R package, rmcorr. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rmcorr/