University of Texas at San Antonio Harry Millwater and Brian Shook Dept. of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas at San Antonio Steve Hudak, Mike.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How do we classify uncertainties? What are their sources? – Lack of knowledge vs. variability. What type of safety measures do we take? – Design, manufacturing,
Advertisements

How do we classify uncertainties? What are their sources? – Lack of knowledge vs. variability. What type of safety measures do we take? – Design, manufacturing,
Quality Assurance (Quality Control)
Inference for Regression
Sensitivity Analysis In deterministic analysis, single fixed values (typically, mean values) of representative samples or strength parameters or slope.
Correlation and regression Dr. Ghada Abo-Zaid
How do we classify uncertainties? What are their sources? – Lack of knowledge vs. variability. What type of safety measures do we take? – Design, manufacturing,
Structural Reliability Analysis – Basics
University of Texas at San Antonio Probabilistic Sensitivity Measures Wes Osborn Harry Millwater Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Sampling Distributions and the Central Limit Theorem.
Statistical Methods in Computer Science Hypothesis Testing I: Treatment experiment designs Ido Dagan.
Probability & Statistics for Engineers & Scientists, by Walpole, Myers, Myers & Ye ~ Chapter 11 Notes Class notes for ISE 201 San Jose State University.
Statistical Methods in Computer Science Hypothesis Testing I: Treatment experiment designs Ido Dagan.
Today Concepts underlying inferential statistics
Correlation and Regression Analysis
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved 8-1 Chapter Sampling Distributions 8 © 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved.
Probability and Statistics in Engineering Philip Bedient, Ph.D.
1 2. Reliability measures Objectives: Learn how to quantify reliability of a system Understand and learn how to compute the following measures –Reliability.
Sample Distribution Models for Means and Proportions
By Jayelle Hegewald, Michele Houtappels and Melinda Gray 2013.
46th SIAA Structures, Dynamics and Materials Conference Austin, TX, April 18-21, 2005 Application of the Generalized Conditional Expectation Method for.
Lecture 5 Correlation and Regression
1 Assessment of Imprecise Reliability Using Efficient Probabilistic Reanalysis Farizal Efstratios Nikolaidis SAE 2007 World Congress.
Reliability assessment of concrete structures Software package under development: -Project GA 1O3/02/1030 (Czech Grand Agency) -International project SARA.
AM Recitation 2/10/11.
CNDE 2013 – Le Mans Study of Probability of the Detection of Defects in Welded Joints of the Techniques of Magnetic Particle and Penetrant Testing Study.
Review of Chapters 1- 5 We review some important themes from the first 5 chapters 1.Introduction Statistics- Set of methods for collecting/analyzing data.
Probabilistic Mechanism Analysis. Outline Uncertainty in mechanisms Why consider uncertainty Basics of uncertainty Probabilistic mechanism analysis Examples.
University of Ottawa - Bio 4118 – Applied Biostatistics © Antoine Morin and Scott Findlay 08/10/ :23 PM 1 Some basic statistical concepts, statistics.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Chapter Sampling Distributions 8.
University of Texas at San Antonio Comparison of Continual On-Board Inspections to a Single Mid-Life Inspection for Gas Turbine Engine Disks Brian D. Shook,
Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Proportion Let {s 1,s 2,…,s n } be a set of independent outcomes from a Bernoulli experiment with unknown probability.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved 8-1 Objectives 1.Describe the distribution of the sample mean: samples from normal populations 2.Describe.
Examining Relationships in Quantitative Research
9.3: Sample Means.
Brian Macpherson Ph.D, Professor of Statistics, University of Manitoba Tom Bingham Statistician, The Boeing Company.
More Continuous Distributions
Acoustic Emission Testing. Activity of AE Sources in Structural Loading AE Sources Non-metallic inclusions Cracks Frequency range 100 – 500kHz Activity.
Preparing for the Hydrogen Economy by Using the Existing Natural Gas System as a Catalyst // Project Contract No.: SES6/CT/2004/ NATURALHY is an.
Tests dealing with the mean of data samples Tests dealing with the variance of the samples Tests dealing with correlation coefficients Tests dealing with.
Tests of Random Number Generators
6.1 Inference for a Single Proportion  Statistical confidence  Confidence intervals  How confidence intervals behave.
5-1 ANSYS, Inc. Proprietary © 2009 ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved. May 28, 2009 Inventory # Chapter 5 Six Sigma.
Digital Twin Workshop Harry Millwater University of Texas at San Antonio Sept ,
For starters - pick up the file pebmass.PDW from the H:Drive. Put it on your G:/Drive and open this sheet in PsiPlot.
T tests comparing two means t tests comparing two means.
Examples of Current Research in “State Awareness” for Digital Models: ICME and NDE Links to Structural Analysis Michael Enright Craig McClung Southwest.
Higher National Certificate in Engineering Unit 36 –Lesson 4 – Parameters used to Describe the Normal Distribution.
STOCHASTIC HYDROLOGY Stochastic Simulation of Bivariate Distributions Professor Ke-Sheng Cheng Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering National.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved Chapter Sampling Distributions 8.
NESSUS Overview and General Capabilities
L Berkley Davis Copyright 2009 MER301: Engineering Reliability Lecture 12 1 MER301: Engineering Reliability LECTURE 12: Chapter 6: Linear Regression Analysis.
Chapter 20 Statistical Considerations Lecture Slides The McGraw-Hill Companies © 2012.
Reducing Uncertainty in Fatigue Life Estimates Design, Analysis, and Simulation 1-77-Nastran A Probabilistic Approach To Modeling Fatigue.
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Forecasting Construction Cost Index Values Using Auto Regression Modeling Charles Nickel, P.E. Cost.
26134 Business Statistics Week 4 Tutorial Simple Linear Regression Key concepts in this tutorial are listed below 1. Detecting.
Chapter 13 Understanding research results: statistical inference.
Structural & Multidisciplinary Optimization Group Deciding How Conservative A Designer Should Be: Simulating Future Tests and Redesign Nathaniel Price.
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 3 조 구태균 김원식 PROJECT 1.
William Prosser April 15, Introduction to Probability of Detection (POD) for Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) This briefing is for status only and.
LESSON 5 - STATISTICS & RESEARCH STATISTICS – USE OF MATH TO ORGANIZE, SUMMARIZE, AND INTERPRET DATA.
Consider your grade in a class - Let’s say that your semester grade is based on the following 4 test scores. 85, 80, 70 and 95 What is your grade for the.
19-1 POD Is Not Reliability Reproducibility –Achieved by rigid calibration Repeatability –Achieved by rigid process control Capability –First principles.
19-1 Lesson 19: Reliability of Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)
Chapter 4: Basic Estimation Techniques
GS/PPAL Section N Research Methods and Information Systems
Chapter 4 Basic Estimation Techniques
Basic Estimation Techniques
Basic Estimation Techniques
RAM XI Training Summit October 2018
Presentation transcript:

University of Texas at San Antonio Harry Millwater and Brian Shook Dept. of Mechanical Engineering University of Texas at San Antonio Steve Hudak, Mike Enright, Loren Francis Southwest Research Institute AFRL DUS&T Program Pat Golden, Program Manager AFOSR Prognosis Workshop Feb 19-20, 2008 Cincinnati, OH Impact of Multiple On-Board Inspections on Cumulative Probability of Detection

University of Texas at San Antonio Case Study  3 Median POD Values  200 Mil  400 Mil  600 Mil  32% Coefficient of Variation  30 Mil POD  32% Coefficient of Variation Which is more effective at reducing the probability of failure? Continual Inspections Depot Inspection

University of Texas at San Antonio Case Study Example problem –Surface crack at bore (defined by pdf) –Loading from air-to-ground mission from F100- PW-229 engines –POD curve modeled with lognormal distribution –FAA library indicates a COV of 32% for ultrasonic inspection –Vary median of POD curve –One inspection per flight

University of Texas at San Antonio Inspection Simulation POD Curve P* a* Detected Cracks

University of Texas at San Antonio Results Independent inspections POD: median 600 mils COV 32%

University of Texas at San Antonio Inspection Simulation dependentindependent

University of Texas at San Antonio Frequency of Inspection Parent POD (600/0.32)

University of Texas at San Antonio Effect of Multiple Independent Inspections Note, even if POD = 0.01 for a single inspection: –after 1000 independent inspections the cumulative POD is –after 1000 dependent inspections the cumulative POD is 0.01

University of Texas at San Antonio Supporting Publication “Quantifying the Effects of Redundant Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection,” –Kimberly Erland, Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation, Vol. 8B,1988, pp –“The fluorescent penetrant inspection process is not independent inspection-to-inspection and therefore the probability of detection for redundant FPI cannot be obtained by a simple multiplication of probabilities Conclusions substantiated using actual inspection data

University of Texas at San Antonio Air-to-Ground Results No Inspection Single Mid-Life Inspection Continual Inspection Dependent Inspections

University of Texas at San Antonio Air-to-Ground Results No Inspection Single Mid-Life Inspection Continual Inspection Dependent Inspections

University of Texas at San Antonio Air-to-Ground Results Continual Inspection Single Mid-Life Inspection No Inspection Dependent Inspections

University of Texas at San Antonio Last Inspection a crit a last A Priori Estimation of POD Effectiveness For continual dependent inspections, POD(a crit ) determines the amount of reduction in POF regardless of the shape of the POD curve and the crack growth curve.

University of Texas at San Antonio Effect of POD(a crit ) POD(a crit ) = 70% for all POD curves Critical crack size ~ 600 mils

University of Texas at San Antonio Normalized Results POF Reduced = 1-POD(a crit ) = 0.3 for all POD curves

University of Texas at San Antonio Random a crit If a crit is random, say from stress scatter or fracture toughness variation, the effective reduction in POF can be determined by Conditional Expectation

University of Texas at San Antonio Lessons Learned Model recurring inspections as dependent - conservative approach POD(a crit ) defines effectiveness of continual inspections

University of Texas at San Antonio Conclusions Continual inspections with a coarse POD sensitivity can offer advantages in the reduction of POF with respect to a more accurate depot inspection - even with dependent inspections.

University of Texas at San Antonio Food for Thought POD curve still useful to characterize the inspection process for recurring inspections? Focus should be on characterizing POD(a crit ) and it’s scatter a crit

University of Texas at San Antonio Questions

University of Texas at San Antonio Inspection Simulation POD (a(N)) Crack is detected for sensor realization n inspection j POD(  (N i )) NiNi POD(a * j ) Realization n S j generates a sensor with detectible crack size (DCS) = n a * j This sensor will detect a crack larger than n a * j or, equivalently, POD(a(N i ))  POD( n a * j ) Process is repeated with independent realizations

University of Texas at San Antonio Subsequent Inspections For subsequent inspections, n a DCS should be approximately the same for each sensor, n a DCS(j)  n a DCS(j+1) This can be simulated by generating samples for subsequent inspections that are correlated to the first inspection. A correlation coefficient of 1.0 implies dependent inspections, i.e., n a DCS(1) = n a DCS(j)

University of Texas at San Antonio Inspection Simulation POD(300) = 0.18 POD with median = 400 miles, COV=32% 18% of sensors will detect a defect less than 300 mils

University of Texas at San Antonio Independent Assumption CPOD X1 X2 Inspection i Inspection i+1 Each inspection significantly increases the CPOD

University of Texas at San Antonio Dependent Assumption Inspection i Inspection i+1 CPOD X1 X2 Each inspection encapsulates previous inspection CPOD=POD(i+1)

University of Texas at San Antonio Effects of POD Curve Median POD # Fail# Detected # Would Fracture POF wo inspection POF w inspection E E E E E-21.03E E-27.5E-3

University of Texas at San Antonio Cumulative POD Cumulative POD based on the assumption of independent inspections (one minus the probability of missing it at all previous inspections) where a i is the crack size at inspection i, POD(a) is the applied POD curve

University of Texas at San Antonio Scatter of Parent POD Larger COV of parent POD leads to significantly higher cumulative POD POD Median: 600 mils Larger COV Independent Inspections

University of Texas at San Antonio CPOD vs. Median and COV of Parent POD Cumulative POD = 1 Cumulative POD = 0 Independent Inspections Cumulative POD varies rapidly wrt COV of parent POD

University of Texas at San Antonio Multiple Sensors CPOD Corr=1 CPOD Corr=0 1 Sensor Bounds

University of Texas at San Antonio Multiple Sensors 1 Sensor Same Sensor Corr=0.9 1 Sensor

University of Texas at San Antonio Multiple Sensors Same Sensor Corr=0.9 Multiple Sensors Corr=0.5 1 Sensor 2 Sensors

University of Texas at San Antonio Multiple Sensors 1 Sensor 2 Sensors 3 Sensors Same Sensor Corr=0.9 Multiple Sensors Corr=0.5

University of Texas at San Antonio Multiple Sensors 1 Sensor 2 Sensors 3 Sensors 10 Sensors Same Sensor Corr=0.9 Multiple Sensors Corr=0.5

University of Texas at San Antonio Effect of Correlation on CPOD Corr=1 Corr=0.8 Corr=0 Corr=0.2 Corr=0.4 Corr=0.6