Measuring Differences Among Probability of Detection Curves

  • Charles Annis
  • Kimberly Erland

Abstract

Probability of Detection (POD) curves are compared by two statistical methods to quantify system-to-system differences. The first method assesses performance among a group of inspection systems through an adaptation of statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA). The second method uses a chi-squared statistic to test for a difference between two systems. Examples using eddy current data are given for each technique.

Keywords

Beach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson and Chimcnti, editors, (1982–1986) — Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. I (1982), Vols. 2A,B (1983), Vols. 3A,B (1984), Vols. 4A,B (1985), Vols. 5A,B (1986), Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annis, C. et.al. (1979) 1st Executive Review “Concept Definition-Retirement-for— Cause of F100 Rotor Components”, 1 August 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berens, A.P. and P.W. Hovey (1983), “Flaw Detection Reliability Criteria”, Final Report, UDR-TR-83–137, — University of Dayton Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annis, C. and K. Erland (1987), “Estimating the Probability of Crack Detection from Data with Right- and Left-Censored Observations”, submitted for publication, and offered as a working document for the Air Force NDE Reliability Team; to be presented at the American Statistical Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, August 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson, W. (1982) — Applied Life Data Analysis, New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kendall and Stuart (1961) — The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2: Inference and Relationship, London: Charles Griffin.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cramer, H. (1946) — Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bury, K.V. (1975) — Statistical Methods in Applied Science, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng and lies (1983) — “Confidence Bands for Cumulative Distribution Functions of Continuous Random Variables”, Technometrics, Vol. 25, No. 1, February, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Annis
    • 1
  • Kimberly Erland
    • 1
  1. 1.United TechnologiesPratt & WhitneyWest Palm BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations