The Potential in Simulation and Metamodeling for the Understanding and Development of NDE

Peter Hammersberg; Gert Persson; Håkan Wirdelius

doi:10.3139/120.110650

Article

The Potential in Simulation and Metamodeling for the Understanding and Development of NDE

Peter Hammersberg , Gert Persson and Håkan Wirdelius

Published/Copyright: November 20, 2014

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Materials Testing Volume 56 Issue 11-12

Abstract

By combining detailed mathematical modeling of the physics involved in NDE with a broader and robust engineering approach based on the sequential steps of screening, modeling and optimization, it is possible to generate metamodels that can support NDE engineering efforts to evaluate the applicability of NDE in a wider context, as a complement to the repeatability, reproducibility and capability studies normally performed. The aim of the initial screening phase is to effectively evaluate and prioritize NDE control parameters from a wider perspective regarding the demands of a specific application and to prioritize parameters of lesser importance for the outcome on the basis of economic and practical considerations. The aim of the second and third steps is to study the influence of the important parameters and to perform sensitivity analyses of reproducibility and repeatability, for example, followed by procedure development, respectively. The methodology is straightforward when it comes to smooth response surfaces of lower order (up to second or third order). Generally, the recommendation for the screening phase is ‘to be bold’ for the definition of the experimental range for each parameter – meaning to make them as wide as possibly relevant for the specific application. For NDE applications not following the Berens assumption for POD studies, e.g., large cracks yield large response signals, such as the varying signal amplitudes from surface breaking notches in ultrasonic testing, the mentioned recommendation of ‘be-bold’ screening phase may lead to incorrect prioritization of parameters. In this publication, this is illustrated by how the width of the experimental range for the control parameters tested during screening actually influences the screening results. Two basic ultrasonic testing set-ups have been compared using the SimSUNDT simulation software package: surface breaking notch (SBN) and side drilled hole (SDH). Even though the results were anticipated, they pointed out the need to further develop the screening methodology supporting NDE engineering, especially when it comes to addressing the issue of applicability. Does the data collected tell us what we actually want to know about the tested application? Or does it only tell us something about the NDE method?

Kurzfassung

Durch die Kombination von detaillierten mathematischen Modellen, der Physik der ZfP-Verfahren mit einem allgemeinen robusten ingenieurwissenschaftlichen Ansatz, basierend auf einer Sequenz aus Screening, Modellierung und Optimierung, ist es möglich, Metamodelle zu entwickeln, um Ingenieure zu unterstützen, die Anwendbarkeit von ZfP-Verfahren in einem breiten Kontext zu untersuchen. Dies dient als Ergänzung zu den üblicherweise durchgeführten Studien zur Wiederholbarkeit, Reproduzierbarkeit und Leistungsfähigkeit von ZfP-Systemen. Das Ziel der Screening-Phase ist es, die Prüfparameter effektiv zu untersuchen und zu priorisieren, sowie, ausgehend von den Anforderungen der speziellen Anwendung, die Parameter, die weniger Einfluss auf das Prüfergebnis haben, nach wirtschaftlichen und praktischen Überlegungen festzulegen. Im zweiten und dritten Schritt werden die wichtigsten Einflussparameter untersucht, um beispielsweise deren Einfluss auf die Wiederholbarkeit und Reproduzierbarkeit zu bestimmen. Dem schließt sich die darauf basierende Prüfungsentwicklung an. Diese Methode ist einfach, wenn es sich bei den Antwortsignalen des Systems um glatte Verteilungen niedriger Ordnung (bis zur 2. oder 3. Ordnung) handelt. Für die Screening-Phase wird in der Regel empfohlen, den Parameterbereich so breit wie möglich für die spezielle Anwendung zu wählen. Werden hingegen ZfP-Anwendungen betrachtet, die nicht den Berens'schen Annahmen (große Risse führen zu großen Signalen) für POD-Untersuchungen folgen, kann die obige Empfehlung für die Screening-Phase zu einer falschen Priorisierung der Parameter führen. Dies geschieht beispielsweise bei der Ultraschallprüfung oberflächenoffener Nuten, die zu variierenden Signalamplituden führen. In diesem Artikel wird gezeigt, welchen Einfluss die Breite des untersuchten Bereiches für die Prüfparameter während der Screening-Phase auf die Prüfergebnisse hat. Dafür werden zwei einfache Ultraschalltestanordnungen mit Hilfe der SimSUNDT Simulationssoftware verglichen: oberflächenoffene Nuten sowie Querbohrungen. Auch wenn die Ergebnisse vorhersehbar sind, zeigt diese Untersuchung, wie wichtig es ist, eine Screening-Methode zu entwickeln, die den ZfP-Ingenieur bei der Bewertung bezüglich Anwendbarkeit einer ZfP-Methode unterstützt: Sagen uns die erfassten Daten das, was wir über das zu prüfende Objekt wissen wollen? Oder sagen sie uns nur etwas über die verwendete ZfP-Methode?

Keywords: Reliability; POD; NDE; modeling; ultrasonic testing

*Correspondence Address, Dr. Peter Hammersberg, Department of Materials and Manufacturing Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

Dr. Peter Hammersberg, born 1961, studied Applied Physics and Electrical Engineering at Linköping University, Sweden, and in 1997 he finished his PhD thesis in the Department of Engineering Materials on the topic of techniques for the determination of the optimal performance of high resolution computerized tomography. He has spent half his carrier in industry working with manufacturing processes and measurement system development and possesses an industrial Master Black Belt degree in Six Sigma improvement methodology. Since 2008, he works as Senior Lecturer and Researcher at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, dividing his time between the NDE division in the Department of Materials and Manufacturing Technology and the Quality Sciences Division in the Department of Technology Management and Economics. He is involved both in process and measurement system development projects and also teaches materials engineering and quality improvement methodologies.

Dr. Gert Persson, born 1963, has a PhD in Mechanics and a MSc degree in Mechanical Engineering and works as Assistant Professor in the Department of Materials and Manufacturing, Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. He is active in the NDE division of the department and is also the Vice Head of the department.

Dr. Håkan Wirdelius, born 1963, has a PhD in Mechanics and a MSc degree in Mechanical Engineering. Since 2005 he is Research Leader of ANDT (advanced NDT) and since 2001 Director of SCeNDT (Scientific Centre of NDT) in the Department of Materials and Manufacturing Technology, Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. Previously, he was employed as Engineering and Scientific Consultant in advanced NDT at DNV Sweden (1998–2001) and as Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Mechanics (1995–1998) at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. He has published 40 publications in scientific journals and conference proceedings which cover mathematical modeling of different NDT techniques.

References

1 A.Öberg: Improved Quality Assurance of Fatigue Loaded Structures, Department of Material and Manufacturing Technology, 2013, Chalmers, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch in Google Scholar

2 A.Öberg: A different view of quality assurance for fatigue loaded structures, Proceedings of the 2^nd Swedish conference on design and fabrication of welded structures, October 9–10, 2013, Borlänge, SwedenSearch in Google Scholar

3 A.Öberg, P.Hammersberg, L.-E.Svensson: The right evaluation method – an enabler for process improvement, International Conference on Joining Materials, 2013, Helsingor, DenmarkSearch in Google Scholar

4 A.Öberg, P.Hammersberg, L.-E.Svensson: Selection of Evaluation Methods for New Weld Demands: Pitfalls and Possible Solutions, Proceedings of the 18^th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, 2012, Durban, South AfricaSearch in Google Scholar

5 W.Rummel: A Path Forward for NDE Reliability. Proceedings of the 5^th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE, 2013, Berlin, GermanySearch in Google Scholar

6 G.Persson, P.Hammersberg, H.Wirdelius: POD Generated by Monte Carlo simulation using a metamodel based on the simSUNDT software, In: D. O.Thompson and D. E.Chimenti (Eds): Review of Progress in QNDE Vol. 31 (2012), pp. 937–944Search in Google Scholar

7 P.Hammersberg, G.Persson, H.Wirdelius: Emulation of POD curves from synthetic data of phased array ultrasound testing, In: D. O.Thompson and D. E.Chimenti (Eds): Review of Progress in QNDE Vol. 31 (2012), pp. 1773–1780Search in Google Scholar

8 G.Persson, H.Wirdelius, P.Hammersberg: Synthetic Non-Parametric POD for Large Defects, Proceedings of the 18^th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, 16–20 April 2012, Durban, South AfricaSearch in Google Scholar

9 D.Forsyth: A Review of POD Estimation from Multiple Sources of Data, Proceedings of the 5^th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE, 2013, Berlin, GermanySearch in Google Scholar

10 ENIQ RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1: Influential/essential parameters, Issue 2, ENIQ Report No. 24, EUR 21751 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, 2005Search in Google Scholar

11 I.Cox, M. A.Gaudard, P. J.Ramsey, M. L.Stephen, L. T.Wright: Visual Six Sigma – making data analysis lean, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN-1 3 978-0-470-50691-2, 2010, New Jersey, USASearch in Google Scholar

12 A.Boström, H.Wirdelius: J. Acoust. Soc. Am.97 (1995), pp. 2836–284810.1121/1.411850Search in Google Scholar

13 A.Boström: SKI Report95: 53, 1995, Stockholm, SwedenSearch in Google Scholar

14 A. S.Eriksson, A.Boström, H.Wirdelius: SKI Report 97:1, 1997, Stockholm, SwedenSearch in Google Scholar

15 P.Bövik, A.Boström: A model of ultrasonic non-destructive testing for internal and subsurface cracks, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.102 (1997), pp. 2723–2733.10.1121/1.420326Search in Google Scholar

16 H.Wirdelius: Experimental validation of the UTDefect simulation software, Proceedings of the 6^th Int. Conf. on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components, 2007, Budapest, HungarySearch in Google Scholar

17 H.Wirdelius, G.Persson: Simulation Based Validation of the Detection Capacity of an Ultrasonic Inspection Procedure, Int. Journal of Fatigue41 (2012), pp. 23–2910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.09.002Search in Google Scholar

18 A. P.Berens: NDE Reliability Data Analysis, in: ASM Metals Handbook, Volume 17, 9^th Edition: Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control, ASM International, Materials Park, 1988, Ohio, USASearch in Google Scholar

19 C.Müller, M.Bertovic, D.Kanzler, M.Skender, J.Pitkänen, U.Ronneteg: A Path Forward for NDE Reliability, Proceedings of the 5^th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE, 2013, Berlin, Germany10.3139/120.110603Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2014-11-20

Published in Print: 2014-11-17

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.3139/120.110650

Keywords for this article

Reliability; POD; NDE; modeling; ultrasonic testing