Evaluation of probability of detection (POD) studies with multiple explanatory variables

Noritaka Yusa, Jeremy S. Knopp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)


This study proposes a new method to evaluate a probability of detection (POD) as a function of more than one flaw parameter. The main idea of the method is to assume that signals due to flaws described with a given parameter have a normal distribution of a mean of and a standard deviation of, and to use a combination of signals calculated by numerical simulations and experimental data to evaluate and, respectively. The method does not postulate a closed-form of found in conventional approaches, and it evaluates a few parameters that characterize the distribution using maximum likelihood analysis to calculate POD. This allows POD evaluation for data that does not satisfy linearity or constant variance assumptions without transformation. The proposed method is demonstrated through analyzing simulated eddy current signals due to flaws appearing in type 316L stainless steel welds. The results of the demonstration confirm that the proposed method can provide the POD with its confidence bounds as a function of the depth and the length of a flaw. The results also showed that the proposed method does not require a large amount of experimental data compared to conventional â vs. a analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)574-579
Number of pages6
Journaljournal of nuclear science and technology
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Apr 2


  • cracking
  • eddy current testing
  • evaluation
  • finite element method
  • flaw
  • inspection
  • non-destructive testing and evaluation
  • numerical simulation
  • probability of detection
  • safety assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nuclear and High Energy Physics
  • Nuclear Energy and Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of probability of detection (POD) studies with multiple explanatory variables'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this