GUIDELINES FoR DEVELoPMENT OF NDE

AccEPTANcE CBtTEBtA

db ahi6 dim a

wdr

GInMjm

mR

Dfld-.)I T^'I

OT NDE AC.xt'rANcE

CRIIEId

&rbdiE ldtuoD (\DE) .dDiqcs rtr sui&r' rwr er4lr! r.d

ee didi

'c[

]r'arlorl

.c'.trdi{&$ d djcdi

or

wba

,'h@rip
.b iorans

h qwi, oi *h.h
'ebEe
(bD) d dqny d ddEr rcdi@, ,'i

&

NDE

$bjdbNDE

No

@id ii bveq,

d+tu s

dr*

d. $!dry

of

rb

baptuittt

oJ

tro\|'

rtu

obi{.

Jutur

wb4

Pdiol{dddipEgtqh4dgeloed
@3tret c4tue 4.d3 kt 8p8h3

& NaBdb dibtr tu u

obj.d dE

& uiiftnd1dr@ddry b a objd,hd Ey dE6dy ftr e djdt nfts 6r

1i,y

do

djEr de b te

{kbE

&tu

Apr'"ftFbd!@igdd'grcdty

s&rd6ii dja.

DE id r !r]fa lpprdq edhd by d prrrrd pdtuiprq, 4iptu b e ud,

cqripd sdqs, qribR oi ud tuidoml .i.& b e F6nr4 d:nimrion e* d.d13

tu DE stmr d

obadiq idtrdiq 6

^fuldgntabrcvh,h6mEl'!dddstt9oi9
mEiddimrt..ffi@idi4bmdini4de.et
subld'iE

or

s@ry iedotr

rw

hdip'idoihv*dluNDE'ehiqEililihi6p@s
ouurjry q earue sids

ituotr

mE Ehbiriry

FlddofdddsinrlryNn6*6.htv.j].dby&mEfuqcbqdid

PMilyiol!ele!'lueo'iqdtyep{lfubewi$iilrifu@g?ldtdb}

fth9fuotr@mli.yo@fug!ler
Adotdfondddiol.fuofqd
iudF@d'bkdcrd .qbeqdd.
reh

d di6k

Ftrdo

ded! i r hsr @rdm

in

.1r4d FFtu@ bbs rl.dd

ung

ud

by

mE b4d

by NDE

td

'e

lpdid

rE rpprid

E4
u.d!E

.P'6ailydi*dotr@Feb!d*4lrE
IlMb4&d!&dopMdME
ddqddi*edemEdjqii@d@ddmEb$id!r'ddd1o@3h
bvl.!&o.mEdbbily&ed

d'f'sldYdsEc@[illyddlbly

Page 5 of 19

Nordtest Project

141 5-98
GuroEunes roR DevetopMENT oF NDE AccEprnruce CRreRtn

1999-02-22

2.2 Symbols

x
xa

w(x)

i
f(x)

Defect size, also used for the combination of more size (e.g. height and length) and other
defect severity parameters (e.g. location), when relevant
lowable defect size
Defect severity, often an expression for the probability of a defect leading to failure
Defect number suffix
= dF(x/dx, defect distribution (often also commonly denoted defect probability denstty

function)

F(x) Cumulative defect distribution, F(-) N Number of defects in an object

n(x) = N'f(x), defect densitY

N(x) - N.F(x), cumulative defect density

NDE response
g(E;x) Response distribution
G(E;x) Response cumulative distribution
& NDE sensitivity level
p Probability of detection, often p = p(x;l%), if detection when E>Eo then
p(x;Eo) = e(E; x)' dE = I - G(Eo;x)
J
Eo

A
pr
pa
ps
C

Acceptance criteria, often including definition of Eo

Probability of rejection, often p. = pr(x;A)
= 1-p,, probabilitYof accePtance
Probability of false call per unit of object being examined (e.9. per m of weld) or related
to insignifi cant defects
NDE cost element

Further information on the definitions and used symbols can be found in Chapter 4.

3. REF'ERENCES
These guidelines rely on the principles laid down in the following two documents and a crossreference is made to them on relevant topics not covered here:

1. Guidelines for NDE Reliability

Determination and Desuiption

NonotBsr, Espoo, Finland. Approved 1998-04.

Nr TscHN

2.

replacing NDE Techniques with One Another.

NoRprrsr, Espoo, Finland. Approved 1995-10.

Nr

Guidelines

for

REPORT 394.

TBcUN REponr 300.

ddmid
a si& l.rEth, biah. ad @s$bry

duds

!i!@!irgl!!

rE:

rldd)

tdli4Bdyrcwr&tdbidle.6!d3i{oyYgqi@nPkkftndd@

i[duEnfut6olnruhdhtgir'a
eME@i.oiviewdlyquld.ome
a s4!e

GE4r

PoD

vd ca &

lib!t$6dlftddpryltsdtlhsl@n

ud

nmron{dnaGtrdiE)dd

tuau.ffit

&. .M

'b

(iEa3e)

c6 (tuD

ryrEdb

dd a prdod

dd.d FEdry

Nordtest Project

41

Page 7 of 19

5-98

1999-02-22

Guroeurr.iEs roR DeveuopnrEi\,rr oF NDE AcceprnNce CRtrEnle

For defect sizes

it

might, dependant on application, be relevant to give absolute or relative

deviations.
4. 1.4 Acceptance

criteria

Prirnary detection and characterisation is often followed by an assessment based on defect

characterisation values, and acceptance or rejection based on set acceptance criteria. Usually the
main steps followed in formulating the acceptance criteria are:

1.

Determination of an NDE sensitivity level to facilitate detection of all defects which might be
unacceptable

2.

of the acceptance criteria themselves. This is usually done in terms of

to
NDE indication and measured or recorded location, size (height and length)
requirements
and defect type, which might be supplemented by a requirement to maximum allowable
cumulative amount of defects.
Formulation

4.1.5 Probability of rejection

After having applied the acceptance criteria an NDE system will have a certain probability of
rejecting a defect. If p,p(x) denotes the probability of a defect being rejected when it has been
detected (with a probability p), the total Probability of Rejection (PoR) for a defect amounts to
P'P.ld.

If rejection is based on sizing, sizing is done with a systematic error of e and a random

error of 6
with a cumulative distribution H(6) and rejection is based on measuring a size larger than xo, the
probability of rejecting a detected defect of size x amounts to

P,p(x)=l-H(xo-x-e)
By properly selecting

xo

it might be possible to achieve

a PoR which is not significantly lower

than the primary PoD for larger or more severe defects.

An illustrative comparison of PoD and

PoR is shown in the left hand figure.
0.8

The probability of accepting a defect,

the Probability of Acceptance (PoA),

o.s

equals 1 minus PoR.

.ct

oo

o.o

*
0.2

Bobaby of dtecthg a detsct

Plobabny of r6leclhg a detected dfect

-.-r:Robably cf rejclhg adelecl

If NDE

system and

assessment

according to the set acceptance criteria

are seen as one total system, the PoD
for this total system is then equal to
the PoR. PoR can thus in many respect
be treated in the same manner as PoD.

ieobo'N*]rqbeElddbfu6
d'bsdFrdi@d&r*a'tudturorddd@ tudobsME@iobjdr
FIddb4ysFdcqldlilylkeljtdi

djd ei4 darid,

sg

Ftu

!tu qrltt
int:lqd

by

4/rals tb

djuniig

B'

(PoF)

b Ernc

tu3brd

ib!

prd4,

nnfuh&cddmEElj?[ttydoM
s,iqlbsbeole'Ydue'fucebd6by
sG3.rui&'ddeidu)@deqldcddfu
sidqco!ffdd.rd.borlEdd
bodllsfu&ddtlidili'@
$ffitudy hid. h qutql @o.d w b d.Fn6ror e 4drcdh de dbb'v

'FJFbLsermtrlo's.loFb'hso

Nordtesl Proisct

141

$98

P96 9 of 19

1999-t2-22

curDEuNEs FoR DEVELoPMEMT oF NDE AccEpraNcE CFrrEFra

T.6dnq obloct

D.f.ctg

. Mt6dat(s)

.ryp(s)

Tectlno condldons

NDEtechnlque

NDE pllonnel
. Educallon

.S1264 L6ngth, hsldn,

pnnciPls

. Equli.nnt lncl.
.EqulFnent

' Spcll irainlng and

liquids, including

dg6, nfrow nglss

. Sudac condilion and

cl6nlng
Clsaning elc.

.Collngs nd

4-4 l)efect contents

an object is described by their number N and sizes (and other

..., xi, ..., xN, which can be descdbed by a fitted distribution function f(x).

The defects contained

characteristics) xr, x2,

in

For calculations averaging a quantity z(x) over all xi it can then in cases be convenient and
releyant to replace the su[unation over the xi by an integral over f(x) accoding to the following:
N

N.Jz(x).f(x)
!z(x,)
=
i=l

dx

when it is advantageous for analysis to assume a form of a defe{t size distribution, the lognormal
or the Weibull distdbution might be suitable. For assumption on defect contents, previous
experiencg as also occasionally reported in open literatuF, from applications similar to the one
in question, can be used,

4,5 Defect severity information

An evaluation of defect severity should ideally yield an estimate for a defect of size (and other
significant parameters) x in terms of a Fobability w(x) for leading to failure One should then
rclate to w(x) for fomulating NDE acceptance cdteria.
In most practical cases today (1999) this routc is, however, not followed, but an allowable defect
size x" calculated (or experimentally determined) based on certain assumptions and utilising
safety factors on important defect significance input panmeters. Such a calculated allowable
yalue will then correspond to a certain (mostly ulknown and low) probability for failure of
w. = w(xJ
xu and not

criteria.

w, will then in most

cases be the quantity

to relate to when formulating acceptance

Nordlest Proisct

41

Page '10 ot 19

5-98

GUIOELINES FOR DEVEIOruEMT OF

1999-02.22

NDE ACCEPIANCE CHIIERIA

4.6 Effect of performing NDE

4,6. 1 Number of defects

When NDE is perfomed on an object and discrete acceptance criteda per corded indication are
used, then the defect content after NDE and corective actions is described by a defect density
n""""p,"d(x;A) =

n(x) (1

- P(x;A))

when the initial defect density is n(x) and the accptance criteria A. The total number of defects
rcmaining in the object is reduced ftom N to

N.**tA)

Jn*no(x;A).ax
00

Jn(x).(l-p.(x;A)).dx

N Jf(x)(1-p.(x;A)).dx

whercas the number of rejected defects amounts to

N"j*d(A) = N-N*e,"d(A) = N' Jft x) p,(x;A) dx

4.6.2 Prcbabilitv of failure

If

w(x) is the probability that a defect of size x may lead to an unacceptable condition, the
prcbability that any ofN defects would lead to an unacceptable condition without NDE is
N

w"

=l-II(1-w(x,))
i=l

which yields

ln(t-wb)
w"

=r-

ih(li=l

"-n[ir"fr

w1x,i)= N. jrlx;.tn(r -wix;).ax

- *t-, ))

- "-n[N'

jit-l

r"tr

- *<"il

a,.

After NDE and conective actions the probability that any defect would lead to an unacceptable
condition is reduced to

*<ot

=,-",.0[ittl-

w(x,).(1-p,(x,;Alil)=

t-*n[N. j<-).h(l- w(x).(l-p,(x;A)).dx)

ll

Nordtest ProFct t41 5,98

Page
ot 19
1999-02-22

GutDsLtNEs FoR DEvEr-opMEtFoF NDE AocEpTANcE CBrIER|a

4,7 Acceptatrce and rejection

4.7.

I Acceptance criteria development steps

On the steps to be undertaken during development of NDE acceptance criteria rcference is made
to Sections 4. I .4 and 6. 1 , l.
4.7.2 Probabilistic acceptance criteria

If

Wo is an acceptable limit for the probability of failure of an object, the relation for W(A)
deriyed at in Section 4.6.2 can, in principle, be used to tune the acceptance criteria A, so that

w(A)<wo
The problem with dircctly doing this is that neither the numbq of defects, N, nor their
distribution f(x), or ever the type of distribution, Ne a prio'|kno.[n. An assessment would have
to be based on an assumed number of defects and an assumed distribution based on previous
experience.

If, however, the NDE performed would give information on the defect conteots of an object (see
Section 4.8) this relation could be used to determine whether an object is acceptable or not. In
fact one would then not have to rely on Fedelermined acceptance cdteria, but decide on these
based on the outcome of the llDE and the knowledge of defect seyedty. When following this
approach, it would be advantageous to do the NDE with a high sensitivity to gain as much
information on the object as possible. The setting of the sensitivity would then have to be
properly balanced against the probability for false calls (see atso Section 4.9).
For certain applications, however, such a /atal evaluation
for an object is not practical,
^pproaah
This applies for instance dudng offshore pipelaying, where
a decision on the integrity of a weld
has to be decided upon before the weld is lowered onto the seabed, precluding an assessment of
the pipeline as a whole for decision on acceptance or rejection. F this case a solution per weld
has to be sought.

different parts numbercd I to m of an object have to be evaluated separately the individual

prcbability of failure of part j, Wj, should, if Wo is the acceprable limit for the probability of
failurc of the object, tulfil the condition

If

1-II(l-wr)<wo
FI

4.7,3 Deterministic acceptance criteria

If defect sevedty w(x) is not known from an Eryineering Critical Assessment (ECA), but only a
determined allowable defect size xn (see Section 4.5), it is very difficult to assess the
probabilities involved including the requirernents to PoD and PoR. It must, however, be assumed
that the failure probability related to x. is low and that the safety factors involved provide for an
extra safety rnargin, allowing PoR values less than (this should be known to personnel
performing the ECA), The assessment of PoD and PoR will then also be subject to an
engineering judgment by an NDE expert. In general one should aim for high, but not

Nordlrt Projecl l4ls-98

Pag 12 ol19
1S-O2-22

GutoEuNEs FoR OEVEIoPMENT oF NDE AccEptaNcE CFTER|A

unreasonabty high, Fobabilities. It is Factically difficult to document with sufficient confidence

values above 80 - 90 % PoD or PoR. One altemative is !o show PoD values well above those
achieved by an empirically accepted quality conhol NDE technique (see Chapters 5 and 6).
4.7,4 Volume effect

Frorn the fomulae for W(A) deducted in Section 4.6.2 arother, quite expected, observation is
clearly evident: The largq the number of defects, or the larger the object, the larger is the
probability of failure, or, - many small defects can be as dangerous as one large one. This rofurze
elct is usually completely disregarde4 when acceptance criteria are fomulated for individual
defects, but some common criteda contain a cumulative clause (e.g, the total length of defects in
a specified length of weld shall not exceed a cedain value), taking this, at least partly, into
account.

4,8 Dcfect contnts determination

4.8. 1

Simplified aoproach

of observations of a quantity xi for i = l, 2, ..., n and the observed xis are all
assuned to be outcomes of a distribution f(x), then the parameters of f(x) can, accoding to the
maximun likelihood principle,be detemircd, by maximizing the likelihood expression

If

ni is the number

flf(x,)''
i=l
If now NDE

or, equivalently, rnaximizing the expression

!n,.lnf(x,)
i=l

of sizes xr, x2, ..., xi, ..., x, in an object and the conesponding,
known probabilities of dete{tion are p(x) the estimated 'expected number' of defects of size xi is
l/O(x), The parameters of an expe{ted defect size distribution f(x) can then be determined by
maximizing the expression
has rcyealed n defects

lnf(x,)

p\-)

In padicular, the expected number of defects in the object becomes

N=$p(x,I
?i

4.8,2 Maximum likelihood estimation of detected distdbution

The density of defects detected during NDE should amount to

ni"*"d(x) = n(x) P(x)

and the total number of defects detected to

Nordlst Proiect 141 5-98

Pg 13 ol 19
1999-02-22

GutoEuNEs FoF DEVELopMENT oF NDE AccEpraNcE cRllERra

No"-*

= Jn(x). p(x). dx = N

.J(x). p(x).dx

with a coresponding distribution

r*."-c)
If

"(.).

pGy'i"<fl

nrel. uf = <"1 e@f i"K\. e@. d

f(x) is assurned known, but with unknown pammeter, p(x) is known, and the NDE
has included sizing (and other characterization) giving the sizes xi b = 1,2,...,Naa-r"a), the
parameters of f(x) can be determined by maximizing the likelihood expression
the form of

N.*

flrup.w)f

1-

[nt.p(t

If

the sizes xj have not been detemined by the NDE, a similar approach can be followed for the
observed NDE indications E (se the relation given in Section 2.2 baween PoD and the
distribution of NDE indications).

If only

the form of p(x) is known (or assumed), but not its parameters, the maximum likelihood
principle can be used to detemine also these paranrete$.

If

of NDE observatiom is low, or the number of parameters for determination high,

the maximum likelihood principle will fail or give very inaccurate results, in which case other
the number

solutions have to be sought.

4.8.3 Bayesian estirnation

As for maximum likelihood estirnation, the distribution type for f(x) is assumed known, whereas
the palametels of this distribution are unknown. The task is to estimate these distribution
paramers. For the purpose of estimating a parameter e in the density function f(x) of the defect
size x, it is assumed that e is a stochastic variable O with known distribution function Fo(o) and
coresponding density function fo(o) = dFe/do. Fo(e) is denoted thep/i,rr distribution of @ and is
based on prior knowledge and experience:
Fo(O) = Fo. p'i.i(Q) = P[O < 0]

The NDE leads to a set of observed defects. The information inherent in these observations is
used in conjunction with the prior information about e to produce so-called Bayesian estimates
of g. Two cases are considered for the oulcome of the NDE:

(l)
(2)

N observed defects: Xt = xt, N, = 12, ..., )(p = 1*

No observed defects ('no findings')

The po.rteliol distribution of @ is a conditional distribution, - given the prior information and the
sample data from the NDE:

Nordlest Proisct

141

Page 14 ot 19
1999-02-22

5-98

GUTDELTNES FoR DEVELoPMENT

oF NDE AccEpraNcE CFrrERra

For Case (l )i

r..n.**I0 )=p[o.e ltX, =x, nX, =11 6...^xN

= xN

)]=

nX, =xr 61, =x, n...nX. =x.]

Plxr =xr
=x2 n...nX* = x*J
^x2

PP<O

For Case (2):

r"",,,n.,(e)=rP<e lx

<

xol=

p[o<e

nx

<

P[x. *ol

^o]

Methods are available to calculate the probabilities in these expressions. Note that x0 is the
magnitude of a non-detectable defect, whose distribution is given by the probability of detection,
p(x), which is assumed known.
The estimator 6 for 0 is chosen as the mean value of the posterior dist.ibution of O, hence for
Case (1):
6

=E[@

l(x,

= x,

^x,

= x2

n...nX*

xp)l

and for Case (2):

6=s[olx<xo]
4,9 Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Important cost elements of NDE are:

Cses
Crar*
Cx*6,

Costs of performing NDE per unit of object examined

Costs of one failure
Costs of one repair

The expected total costs related to NDE can then be represented by a cost function (here given in
a simplified fashion) as function of NIDE efforts A (representative for applied acceptance criteria
including NDE sensitivity setting):

C(A) = m g*or14; * *'p(A) Cq.rd' + N(l-p(A)) CF"ib + m p,(A) CR'p,i'

N is here the number of defects in the object in question leading to failure, m the number of units
examined, p the PoR and p" the number of false calls per unit of object examined ('probability of
false calls').
For cost savings through NDE of course C(A) should be less than zero.

Pago 15 ol 19

Nord!6st Proict 141 5-98

Gu]DELINES FoR DEVELoPIMENI oF

1999-02-22

NDE AccEPIANcE CF|TRIA

If

one for simplicity assume CNDE relatively

independent of A. a suaighl forward minimisation of C yields an optimum NDE effort from

9
'E

{/l tnasns
.a

dp=
inspscli@ eno

dp"

Cr.{,i.

CF,jr*"

- CR

>0

u,*tv

-9

- o

Costopinlm3lope
co3t opliduin Polnr

Probblllty of

5.

fals cll

The optimal poilt with respect to inspection

efforts A can then be found in the NDE

techniques

ROC (Receiver Operating

Characreristics) diagram (left) showing p

against p. with inspection efforts A as a
paramelgr. A problem met in this, and other,
connection is that N in general is not known.

QUALITY CONTROL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

5.1 Introduction

Quality control NDE is aimed at checking whether an acceptable workmanship level is met or
not. If this workmanship level is not meq there is a chance, in the long run, to have unacceptable
defects introduced into the object(s) in question. violating the quality requirement should
thereforc lead to corrective actions. This is often done as a punishment by forcing manufacturers
and their personnel (welders, etc.) to do corrective actions by rcpair or replacement. Morc
seldom the violation of the workrnanship standards leads to a fitness-for-purpose assessment of
the findings made, which could avoid damaging repairs to be done.
Quality levels have often ben developed over time, and are as such empirically based, often as
expreEsed by the used acceptance criteria f traditional NDE techniques. Altematively an
engineering judgement is used to define quality levels gxpressed by defect severity parameters
like size, type and location as is done in ISO 5817 / EN 25817 Atc-welded joihts in steel Guidance on qualiE levels for imperfections. In both cases the quality level definition is thus
somewhat arbitrary. This fact can also be taken into account when formulating NDE quality
confol acceptance criteria.

5.2 Principles

A quality or workmanship level is something that should be met on an 'average' in the long run.
The requirements to the applied NDE and acceptance criteda are thus also not more stringent
than to reject defects coresponding to the quality level on an average, i.e. in 5070 of the cases.

5,3 Formul&tion ofquality level NDE cceptnce criteria

Ed'y q rd9

pads (i4

@ei.i@6budb.bsddlFcifidd&

rqd@

9F)

rrc{h4e

or

6. Fliditiry

or

s.

aqb* diet! sturd h. rdn"rdd h oiide 4 rsr . tubddry of Rctlod (m) d

5o46rdddgg''y@Gpdtrg

6a&eMca{r.orqb; d
dl)niqErol![jdDlFjffcdEie
7..]l4t4ilhoBlfub'd.1v|@

in

turtr

2,

evildi

lq 4te,c

NM

d.t4l'ebqELqldbqhgluda5,

Fmdrd4mEacidi.lo
PjdPt*qidv!Jdd!d,dcbbdbid
dkq v6ch dghr d b u lourBd! @drh d e objd, q ! 4h Fobb ni 6r
@Ad.dbocn* r&is3iy6r&iib
.lomof'dbiwoff.il6nridioiof&le'
l.td'y'Me6,.tiFl!d4din
b4!B 4h e bed otr e Eb iy upddn3
utd rbgh DE
ididiom

NDE

rcsrts c@ sdiotr 4.3 3).

lbdd tur e pdorne4

qrciEd d D 6jd 5 ! vbb

dr, d lEpr

Gr

dd

Fn

e@t d

rren

i@fut{ndudngdishPipdqb&ykdrnfunby}ddngdh!d8
d & piF ib rhr s. A dadd oi Eer@. d rtd'ioi of .*d srd b ro h d lihn

sNilpdoE@disdddl!!46g.

did'iuioi rdoD(t d dkbtudd pd!4h

3. bie vhdb o oEdr rF (e, ryrb, ! s*rtoi
ipplr,ble fft r. dbjld! h qBioi, or

djd

7.2)

!cDr'.dd, r

Fn! o hdrvidd &f46

3.U$qFn@ftdtl.leim
ftdq3d(hadblsrc3ikibch4tr1

A@'qlddldnucffu$.id.@@..pp!d'fuFre6abi1kd.dfut@bdoldc
DE vhi.h .h b fdo,!d. vb a drd ffiry alsnqr o y tdd jrsdL d.id
lLB ( S.io 4t ad rb DE idld d4d. dr'8 bbqE n o![d dov.
ftsrpp{dlbiN!$e6l]ovi4sbpsi

lhrdebhgidnscd'ialA!G!4
ud3 b BS m64e' q rd e
2UgdastrEtyhi3hMEjddviqbB.Irdd*d'dd!
3. u! d trEld d.rd sir b j!d8" @ 3!r ft Ejdid
lis.

d'i

(E

kdd 47., d er,

e tun
'hdd
kid 4.r 5t orc dhdiye fft swi4 rdcrdy hiri *driir b 6 sv poD vdud
5 s.fi.rsdy h4h

y cro

2)

dro

Page '!8 o, 19

Nordte6t Project 141 5-98

1999-92-22

GutoELrNs FoF DEVELoPMENToF NDE AccEprANcE CRmRTA

well above those aphieved by an empirically accepted quality control NDE technique (illustrated
below). For sizing tolerances the 95 or 99 enor distribution quantile limits may be used.
Such fltness-for-purpose qiteria are often" as ar! additional safety measure, supplemented by
specific quality or workmanship cdteda to maintain weld quality at a prcdeftned, acceptable
level. Violating these quality criteria may then lead to stricter acceptance criteria to be used for
consecutive welds until the weld quality has bee[ re-established.
Figures are given below illustrating the above approach, PoD adequacy and assessment of sizing
accuracies and limits.

14
'12

x50

Allowable defoct 8iz6 llmlt t.om

u" x 25rl mm
6nglnoetlng crltlcal aggssmont 0.5 % slroln
Sutldc dol6cl'
or experiments

Er0
E

8
E6
o

Ufferenc larger than sizing accuracres

llon-allowable defect sizes

Allowebls defoct slzos

Accoptable defect sizes

80 100

120

ftofoct length [mml

6.3 Probbilistic approaches

Probabilistic routines for developing optimised NDE fitness-for-purpose criteria may become
very complicated (see Section 6.1) and are not yet (1999) fully developed in a simplified form,
but approaches can be used or established based on the guidance given in Chapter 4, especially
Sections 4.4 to 4.9 (see also Section 6,1.1). Corrunercially available probabilistic softw:re
packages are available for doing the required calculations and optimisation. A description of
such software does, however, fall beyond the scope of these guidelines, and reference is made to
appropriate literature on the topic, including information from relevant software companies.

Norcltest Project

41

$98

Page 19 of 19

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMEMT OF

't99go2-22

NDE ACCEPTANCE CRIEFIA

Examples of reliability data used for qualification end determination of

acceptance criteria for an utoDted ultrasonic examination system

PrcbaHlitv of dotectton

l-0-

coflparison of Radiography ard

Dri.cdon lfcho >

AIJT:

FoDdm

G s%6iddE

-Rad'.sdiy

FoD

i' ' F{iq@h,

-Rdiryolr'

tuDo mns

@re

inn

0,1

ttefect height lmml

Compafison of PoD cunes

lor

automated uhtdsonic etaaminlion (AUT) at a

specfud sensilivity level and rdiogaphy trddition

coflttol to show adeqaate lttdsonic sensitivw.

.
.

ToFD bsod

990 quanlil
-950/0

fot

quliry

in

obsoMfons

tleishl

qlantloln sitno
-lvleasured

ccepled

obs6Mto.s

Echo amplitud bsod

Heisht=

'

omr dirributon

sitno ercr

'*i

1",

F.;

Dfct Height [mml

Sc.ttter plol showing ,tvw dqect heht delrnited by autornted ulttsot ic
dat rhtion against d6tructiveb, detqfiined heha h ccarcy lirnia used la

detmine,he Afercnce befitee a4c4ploble and alk*w!)Ie defecl sizes.

@...o..