ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA >
Reliability evaluation: From non-destructive testing to structural health monitoring
Received date: 2024-10-25
Revised date: 2024-11-26
Accepted date: 2024-12-04
Online published: 2024-12-18
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(51921003);Frontier Technologies R&D Program of Jiangsu(BF2024068);Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(NI2023001);The Fund of Prospective Layout of Scientific Research for Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics;Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control for Aerospace Structures （Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics）(MCAS-I-0423G01);Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province(KYCX22_0347)
The engineering applications of Structural Health Monitoring （SHM） methods have become more and more popular， and their application in the aerospace field has been gradually developed. However， but there is still no widely recognized standard on how to evaluate their reliability. In recent years， both academia and industry have made many explorations on how to develop SHM reliability evaluation methods， and the Non-Destructive Testing （NDT） reliability evaluation method has been used as a starting point for SHM reliability evaluation. However， SHM is significantly different from NDT both in terms of system realization and application mode， and the reliability evaluation of SHM has yet to be thoroughly studied. This paper reviews the reliability evaluation methods from NDT to SHM. The development of NDT reliability evaluation method， the application of NDT evaluation method on SHM， the difference between SHM and NDT reliability evaluation， and the development of the SHM reliability evaluation method are discussed with the current research status. Based on this， a condition control-based dual-reliability evaluation for SHM is proposed， and concludes with a summary and prospect.
Shenfang YUAN , Qiuhui XU , Jian CHEN . Reliability evaluation: From non-destructive testing to structural health monitoring[J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2025 , 46(5) : 531442 -531442 . DOI: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2024.31442
| 1 | 袁慎芳. 结构健康监控［M］. 北京： 国防工业出版社， 2007： 1-18. |
| YUAN S F. Structural health monitoring and damage control［M］. Beijing： National Defense Industry Press， 2007： 1-18 （in Chinese）. | |
| 2 | 孙侠生，肖迎春.飞机结构健康监测技术的机遇与挑战［J］.航空学报， 2014， 35（12）： 3199-3212. |
| SUN X S， XIAO Y C. Opportunities and challenges of aircraft structural health monitoring［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2014， 35（12）： 3199-3212 （in Chinese）. | |
| 3 | 袁慎芳， 任元强， 邱雷. 导波结构健康监测方法与实践［M］. 北京： 科学出版社， 2024：315-359. |
| YUAN S F， REN Y Q， QIU L. Guided wave structural health monitoring methods and practices［M］. Beijing： Science Press， 2024： 315-359 （in Chinese）. | |
| 4 | SAE. Guidelines for writing IVHM requirements for aerospace systems： SAE ARP6883?［R］. Warrendale：SAE International， 2019. |
| 5 | SAE.Perspectives on integrating structural health monitoring systems into fixed-wing military aircraft： SAE AIR6245-2019 ［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2019. |
| 6 | SAE. Structural health monitoring considerations and guidance specific to rotorcraft： AIR6892-2020?［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2020. |
| 7 | LINDGREN E. SHM reliability and implementation overview-A personal military aviation perspective［C］?∥Structural Health Monitoring， 2015. |
| 8 | CAWLEY P. Structural health monitoring： Closing the gap between research and industrial deployment?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2018， 17（5）： 1225-1244. |
| 9 | SWINDELL P， STEPHENS D. Federal aviation administration’s probability of detection testing results for structural health monitoring （SHM）［C］?∥Proceedings of 2021 48th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation， 2022. |
| 10 | BAYOUMI A， VOGT T， MUELLER I. New approach for reliability assessment of guided wave-based structure health monitoring system on a pipe application［C］?∥8th International Workshop on Reliability of NDT/NDE. 2023. |
| 11 | SAE. Guidelines for implementation of structural health monitoring on fixed wing aircraft： SAE ARP6461A［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2021. |
| 12 | Department of Defense. Nondestructive evaluation system reliability assessment： MIL-H ［S］. Washington， D.C.： United States Air Force， 2009. |
| 13 | YEE B G， CHANG F H， COUCHMAN J C， et al. Assessment of NDE reliability data： NASA-CR-134991 ［R］. Washington， D.C.： NASA， 1976. |
| 14 | LEWIS W H， SPROAT W， DODD B D， et al. Reliability of nondestructive inspections-Final report： Report SA-ALC/MME 76-6-38-1［R］. Georgia： United States Air Force， Air Logistics Center， Kelly Air Force Base， 1978. |
| 15 | 薛小锋， 赵淼龑， 杜倩宜， 等. 基于人员和环境因素定量化的检测可靠性［J］. 航空学报， 2024， 45（6）： 228859. |
| XUE X F， ZHAO M Y， DU Q Y， et al. Detection reliability based on quantification of human and environmental factors［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2024， 45（6）： 228859 （in Chinese）. | |
| 16 | KEPRATE A， RATNAYAKE R M C. Probability of detection as a metric for quantifying NDE capability： The state of the art［J］. The Journal of Pipeline Engineering， 2015， 14（3）： 199-209. |
| 17 | 林富甲， 黄玉珊. 裂纹检测概率曲线的统计测定［J］. 航空学报， 1982， 3（4）： 21-27. |
| LIN F J， HUANG Y S. Statistical determination of a flaw detection probability curve［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 1982， 3（4）： 21-27 （in Chinese）. | |
| 18 | BERENS A P. NDE reliability data analysis［M］. Materials Park： American Society of Metals International， 1989： 1386-1470. |
| 19 | UNDERHILL P R， KRAUSE T W. Quantitative fractography for improved probability of detection （POD） analysis of bolt hole eddy current［J］. Research in Nondestructive Evaluation， 2011， 22（2）： 92-104. |
| 20 | ANNIS C， GANDOSSI L， MARTIN O. Optimal sample size for probability of detection curves?［J］. Nuclear Engineering and Design， 2013， 262： 98-105. |
| 21 | CARBONI M， CANTINI S. Advanced ultrasonic “Probability of Detection” curves for designing in-service inspection intervals?［J］. International Journal of Fatigue， 2016， 86： 77-87. |
| 22 | GEORGE A G. Probability of detection （POD） curves derivation， application and limitations［R］. Merseyside： Health and Safety Executive， 2006. |
| 23 | SINGH R. Three decades of NDT reliability assessment and demonstration： Karta-3510-99-01［R］. San Antonio： AF NDI Office， 2000. |
| 24 | SCHNEIDER C A， RUDLIN J R. Review of statistical methods used in quantifying NDT reliability［J］. Insight - Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring， 2004， 46（2）： 77-79. |
| 25 | MOSKOVCHENKO A， ?VANTNER M， VAVILOV V， et al. Analyzing probability of detection as a function of defect size and depth in pulsed IR thermography［J］. NDT & E International， 2022， 130： 102673. |
| 26 | BODE M D， ASHBAUGH D M， BOYCE K L， et al. Corrosion structured experiment?［C］?∥AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics， 2002， 615（1）： 1779-1786. |
| 27 | YUSA N， CHEN W X， HASHIZUME H. Demonstration of probability of detection taking consideration of both the length and the depth of a flaw explicitly［J］. NDT & E International， 2016， 81： 1-8. |
| 28 | 宋凯， 张弛， 晏晨辉， 等. 基于双参数表征的航空发动机轮盘模型辅助涡流检测可靠性［J］. 航空学报， 2023， 44（13）： 227866. |
| SONG K， ZHANG C， YAN C H， et al. Reliability of aero-engine wheel model assisted eddy current testing based on two-parameter representation?［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2023， 44（13）： 227866 （in Chinese）. | |
| 29 | NOCKEMANN C， HEIDT H， THOMSEN N. Reliability in NDT： ROC study of radiographic weld inspections［J］. NDT & E International， 1991， 24（5）： 235-245. |
| 30 | SULTAN A A， WASHER G. A pixel-by-pixel reliability analysis of infrared thermography （IRT） for the detection of subsurface delamination?［J］. NDT & E International， 2017， 92： 177-186. |
| 31 | VISSER W G. POD/POS curves for non-destructive examination ［R］. Merseyside： Health and Safety Executive， 2002. |
| 32 | SPENCER R， TODOROV E， WHITE P， et al. Advanced technologies and methodology for automated ultrasonic testing systems quantification［R］.Washington，D.C.：U.S. Department of Transportation Pipe and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipline Safety， 2011. |
| 33 | NATH S K. Estimates of probability of detection and sizing of flaws in ultrasonic time of flight diffraction inspections for complex geometry components with grooved surfaces［J］. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation， Diagnostics and Prognostics of Engineering Systems， 2021， 4（2）： 021003. |
| 34 | SUBAIR S M， BALASUBRAMANIAM K， RAJAGOPAL P， et al. Finite element simulations to predict probability of detection （PoD） curves for ultrasonic inspection of nuclear components［J］. Procedia Engineering， 2014， 86： 461-468. |
| 35 | WIRDELIUS H， PERSSON G. Simulation based validation of the detection capacity of an ultrasonic inspection procedure?［J］. International Journal of Fatigue， 2012， 41： 23-29. |
| 36 | BATO M R， HOR A， RAUTUREAU A， et al. Experimental and numerical methodology to obtain the probability of detection in eddy current NDT method［J］. NDT & E International， 2020， 114： 102300. |
| 37 | KUDVA J N， GRAGE M J， ROBERTS M M， et al. Aircraft structural health monitoring and other smart structures technologies-perspectives on development of future smart aircraft［C］∥Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 1999： 106-119. |
| 38 | KESSLER S S. Certifying a structural health monitoring system： Characterizing durability， reliability and longevity［C］∥Proceedings of the 1st International Forum on Integrated Systems Health Engineering and Management in Aerospace， 2005： 7-10. |
| 39 | DESIMIO M， OLSON S， DERRISO M. Decision uncertainty in a structural health monitoring system［C］?∥SPIE Proceedings， Smart Structures and Materials 2005： Smart Structures and Integrated Systems. 2005. |
| 40 | LU Y H， MICHAELS J E. A methodology for structural health monitoring with diffuse ultrasonic waves in the presence of temperature variations?［J］. Ultrasonics， 2005， 43（9）： 717-731. |
| 41 | NICHOLS J M， TRICKEY S T， SEAVER M， et al. Using ROC curves to assess the efficacy of several detectors of damage-induced nonlinearities in a bolted composite structure［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2008， 22（7）： 1610-1622. |
| 42 | LU Y H， MICHAELS J E. Feature extraction and sensor fusion for ultrasonic structural health monitoring under changing environmental conditions［J］. IEEE Sensors Journal， 2009， 9（11）： 1462-1471. |
| 43 | STULL C J， HEMEZ F M， FARRAR C R. On assessing the robustness of structural health monitoring technologies?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2012， 11（6）： 712-723. |
| 44 | FLYNN E B， TODD M D， CROXFORD A J， et al. Enhanced detection through low-order stochastic modeling for guided-wave structural health monitoring［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2012， 11（2）： 149-160. |
| 45 | COBB A C， MICHAELS J E， MICHAELS T E， et al. Ultrasonic structural health monitoring： A probability of detection case study［C］?∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2009. |
| 46 | COBB A C， FISHER J， MICHAELS J E. Model-assisted probability of detection for ultrasonic structural health monitoring［C］?∥Proceedings of the 4th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE， 2009： 24-26. |
| 47 | ALDRIN J C， MEDINA E A， LINDGREN E A， et al. Protocol for reliability assessment of structural health monitoring systems incorporating model-assisted probability of detection （MAPOD） approach?［C］?∥Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 2011： 13-15. |
| 48 | MUELLER I， JANAPATI V， BANERJEE S， et al. On the performance quantification of active sensing SHM systems using model-assisted POD methods?［C］?∥Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 2011. |
| 49 | LIU B， CHANG F K. Generating damage probability-of detection curves in structural health monitoring transducer networks： US8069011B2 ［P］. 2008-10-16. |
| 50 | YAN J， LAFLAMME S， LEIFSSON L. Computational framework for dense sensor network evaluation based on model-assisted probability of detection［J］. Materials Evaluation， 2020， 78（5）： 573-583. |
| 51 | SBARUFATTI C， GIGLIO M. Performance qualification of an on-board model-based diagnostic system for fatigue crack monitoring［J］. Journal of the American Helicopter Society， 2017， 62（4）： 1-10. |
| 52 | TSCHOKE K， MUELLER I， MEMMOLO V， et al. Feasibility of model-assisted probability of detection principles for structural health monitoring systems based on guided waves for fiber-reinforced composites?［J］. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics， Ferroelectrics， and Frequency Control， 2021， 68（10）： 3156-3173. |
| 53 | FALCETELLI F， YUE N， ROSSI L， et al. A model-assisted probability of detection framework for optical fiber sensors［J］. Sensors， 2023， 23（10）： 4813. |
| 54 | GIANNEO A， CARBONI M， GIGLIO M. Feasibility study of a multi-parameter probability of detection formulation for a Lamb waves-based structural health monitoring approach to light alloy aeronautical plates［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2017， 16（2）： 225-249. |
| 55 | LIU C， DOBSON J， CAWLEY P. Efficient generation of receiver operating characteristics for the evaluation of damage detection in practical structural health monitoring applications?［J］. Proceedings Mathematical， Physical， and Engineering Sciences， 2017， 473（2199）： 20160736. |
| 56 | JANAPATI V， KOPSAFTOPOULOS F， LI F， et al. Damage detection sensitivity characterization of acousto-ultrasound-based structural health monitoring techniques［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2016， 15（2）： 143-161. |
| 57 | YUE N， ALIABADI M H. Hierarchical approach for uncertainty quantification and reliability assessment of guided wave-based structural health monitoring?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2021， 20（5）： 2274-2299. |
| 58 | SCHUBERT KABBAN C M， GREENWELL B M， DESIMIO M P， et al. The probability of detection for structural health monitoring systems： Repeated measures data?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2015， 14（3）： 252-264. |
| 59 | MUELLER I， MEMMOLO V， TSCH?KE K， et al. Performance assessment for a guided wave-based SHM system applied to a stiffened composite structure［J］. Sensors， 2022， 22（19）： 7529. |
| 60 | LEUNG M S H， CORCORAN J. Evaluating the probability of detection capability of permanently installed sensors using a structural integrity informed approach?［J］. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation， 2021， 40（3）： 82. |
| 61 | FALCETELLI F， YUE N， DI SANTE R， et al. Probability of detection， localization， and sizing：The evolution of reliability metrics in structural health monitoring［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2022， 21（6）： 2990-3017. |
| 62 | FLYNN E B， TODD M D. A Bayesian approach to optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring with application to active sensing?［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2010， 24（4）： 891-903. |
| 63 | COLOMBO L， TODD M D， SBARUFATTI C， et al. On statistical multi-objective optimization of sensor networks and optimal detector derivation for structural health monitoring?［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 167： 108528. |
| 64 | MARKMILLER J F C， CHANG F K. Sensor network optimization for a passive sensing impact detection technique?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2010， 9（1）： 25-39. |
| 65 | YAO Y， GLISIC B. Sensing sheets： Optimal arrangement of dense array of sensors for an improved probability of damage detection?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2015， 14（5）： 513-531. |
| 66 | YADAV S K， MISHRA S， KOPSAFTOPOULOS F， et al. Reliability of crack quantification via acousto-ultrasound active-sensing structural health monitoring using surface-mounted PZT actuators/sensors?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2021， 20（1）： 219-239. |
| 67 | MALLARDO V， ALIABADI M H， SHARIF KHODAEI Z. Optimal sensor positioning for impact localization in smart composite panels［J］. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures， 2013， 24（5）： 559-573. |
| 68 | CHEN C D， CHIU Y C， HUANG Y H， et al. Assessments of structural health monitoring for fatigue cracks in metallic structures by using lamb waves driven by piezoelectric transducers?［J］. Journal of Aerospace Engineering， 2021， 34（1）： 04020091. |
| 69 | AMEYAW D A， ROTHE S， S?FFKER D. A novel feature-based probability of detection assessment and fusion approach for reliability evaluation of vibration-based diagnosis systems?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2020， 19（3）： 649-660. |
| 70 | FALCETELLI F， CRISTIANI D， YUE N， et al. Qualification of distributed optical fiber sensors using probability of detection curves for delamination in composite laminates?［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2023， 22（5）： 2972-2986. |
| 71 | MORIOT J， QUAEGEBEUR N， LE DUFF A， et al. A model-based approach for statistical assessment of detection and localization performance of guided wave–based imaging techniques［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2018， 17（6）： 1460-1472. |
| 72 | ALDRIN J C， MEDINA E A， LINDGREN E A， et al. Model-assisted probabilistic reliability assessment for structural health monitoring systems?［C］?∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2010. |
| 73 | ALDRIN J C， ANNIS C， SABBAGH H A， et al. Assessing the reliability of nondestructive evaluation methods for damage characterization?［C］?∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2014. |
| 74 | KUHN J D， SONI S R. Estimating changes in SHM performance using probability of detection degradation functions［J］. Structural Longevity， 2009， 2（1）： 1-10. |
| 75 | WU W， CANTERO-CHINCHILLA S， PRESCOTT D， et al. A general approach to assessing SHM reliability considering sensor failures based on information theory［J］. Reliability Engineering & System Safety， 2024， 250： 110267. |
| 76 | GAO C J， FANG Z W， LIN J， et al. Model averaging and probability of detection estimation under hierarchical uncertainties for Lamb wave detection?［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 165： 108302. |
| 77 | GIANNAKEAS I N， SHARIF KHODAEI Z， ALIABADI M H. Digital clone testing platform for the assessment of SHM systems under uncertainty［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 163： 108150. |
| 78 | ISO. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results-Part 1： General principles and definitions： ?［S］. Geneva： International Standards for Organization， 2023. |
| 79 | ISO. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results-Part 2： Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method： ［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2019. |
| 80 | ISO/IEC. Uncertainty of measurement-Part 3： Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement （GUM：1995）： Guide 98-3：2008［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2008. |
| 81 | ISO/IEC. International vocabulary of metrology-basic and general concepts and associated terms： Guide 99：2007［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2007. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
CJA