Proceedings

ICAF 2023
Delft, The Netherlands, 2023
Home Program Author Index Search

NASA NDE fracture critical detectable flaw sizes history and methodology


Go-down icaf2023 Tracking Number 12

Presentation:
Session: NDI, inspections and maintenance
Room: Theatre room: plenary
Session start: 16:00 Tue 27 Jun 2023

Peter Parker   peter.a.parker@nasa.gov
Affifliation: NASA

William Prosser   william.h.prosser@nasa.gov
Affifliation: NASA

Ajay Koshti   ajay.koshti-1@nasa.gov
Affifliation: NASA

David Forsyth   dave@ndtanalysis.com
Affifliation: NDT Analysis

Michael Suits   mike.suits@nasa.gov
Affifliation: NASA

James Walker   james.l.walker@nasa.gov
Affifliation: NASA


Topics: - NDI, inspections and maintenance (Genral Topics)

Abstract:

NASA requires that NDE methods and inspectors demonstrate 90% Probability of Detection (POD) with 95% confidence for critical flaw sizes when inspecting fracture critical metallic components. NASA addresses the known variability of NDE inspector capability in two ways. The first, Special NDE, requires that every inspector demonstrate the required 90/95 POD, which is resource intensive. The second approach is Standard NDE for which conservative flaw sizes for different NDE methods are provided such that it is expected that most properly trained inspectors will exceed the 90/95 POD requirement. As such, individual POD demonstration testing is not required. The origin of NASA Standard NDE dates to the start of the Space Shuttle Program in the early 1970’s. In the first study to quantitatively assess NDE methods and inspectors, the performance of multiple inspectors was evaluated for different NDE methods using a large set of fatigue cracked specimens. A rudimentary POD analysis was performed to estimate the 90/95 POD flaw size for each inspector for each method. Additionally, the average and standard deviation of the 90/95 POD flaw size across the multiple inspectors was calculated to estimate the flaw size for which 95 percent of inspectors would provide the 90/95 POD capability. These estimated 90/95/95 POD flaw sizes evolved into the NASA Standard NDE flaw sizes still in use for structural analysis five decades later. The methodology for performing Standard NDE POD studies was never documented in NASA requirements. Furthermore, POD analysis methods have significantly evolved since this seminal study. Likewise, NDE methods have improved and there has been a push to reassess Standard NDE flaw sizes for existing methods, and to develop Standard NDE flaw sizes for new methods such as digital radiography. In this study, a Standard NDE POD methodology was developed and baselined using the historical data. This reanalysis of the historical data identified several deficiencies in the original test plan as well as an overall lack of conservatism in the estimated 90/95/95 POD flaw sizes. The results of this historical review and the new methodology are being incorporated into an update of NASA NDE POD requirements.