6

Application of NDT Data Fusion to

Weld Inspection

...the consequences of decision-making can also have numbers attached to them, and
these two sets of numbers combined to solve the problem and determine the best decision
Lindley, 1971

6.1 Introduction
Inspection results from two or more NDT systems used for the examination of the same
specimen are usually different, sometimes in disagreement, even if related to the same
defect. In the case of two contradictory results, the NDT inspector has no reason to favour
one instrument over another and more inspections may be required using a third system to
confirm or refute the presence or size of a defect. In the worst cases, decisions could be
made resulting in unnecessary and expensive repair costs, or no action taken where a
major fault has been detected but wrongly characterised. Uncertainty and errors in signal
interpretation are factors which may cause problems in decision making. The information
from NDT sensors can be combined to help in decision making.
Both a theoretical approach to, and experimental results from, the application of NDT
data fusion to weld inspection are presented in this chapter. Non-destructive examination
of welds on plates, pipes and T-joints with induced defects performed using two
commercial eddy current systems is described. A parallel multisensor approach using
Bayesian statistical theory and Dempster-Shafer evidential reasoning was used to
combine defect information such as depth and length from up to five NDT sensors. Fusion
of eddy current, ultrasonic and radiographic data from a surface breaking defect is also
presented. In addition, NDT data fusion at pixel level is introduced. The performances of
these three data fusion processes applied to NDT are discussed.
The following procedure was adopted:

selection of weld samples

selection of NDT systems
sample inspection, defect detection and sizing
assessment of experimental results for each system
data processing
data visualisation
data fusion
decision making
comparison and appraisal of data fusion strategies.
 Prior to eddy current and ultrasonic inspections, each weld sample should be subject to
visual examination, dye penetrant inspection and magnetic particle inspection (MPI). If no
flaws are detected with visible and dye penetrant inspections, the crack length measure-
ments performed with MPI should be used as reference.

6.2 Weld samples

The performance of each sensor, with relation to a particular application, needs to be
established prior to fusion in order to assign a weight of evidence or degree of efficiency to
the sensor. It is only by knowing the limit of each sensor that meaningful information,
with a high confidence level, will be extracted. In order to do so, data have to be collected
from the inspection of weld samples made of material similar to the one to be inspected in
the field, with defects of known dimension and location. Because a weld itself is a defect,
their inspection needs to be carefully carried out. Figure 6.1 shows a cross-section of a
typical plate with a centreline weld.
It is usually good practice to cut three calibration slots into a butt welded plate sample in
order to calibrate the NDT equipment prior to inspection (Table 6.1). Calibration slots can
be in the parent metal as it is highly unlikely that cracking occurs in this region due to
external loading; the most important defects that do occur are fatigue cracks at the weld
toe regions.l Access to a library of weld sample geometries with different defect types,
such as a toe crack, a root crack and a HAZ crack (Fig. 6.2), is required to define prior
probabilities which will be used in data fusion.
Weld

Heat Affected Zone

(HAZ)
Parent Metal
Fig. 6.1 Cross-section of a typical plate with a centreline weld

Table 6.1 Typical dimensions of calibration

slots on a butt welded plate

Calibration slot Length/mm Depth/mm

A 40.28 1.96
B 19.81 1.00
C 10.23 0.53

Toe crack HAZ crack

Root crack
Fig. 6.2 Cross-section of a butt welded plate with artificial flaws
6.3 Non-destructive examination of the test specimens
In addition to visual examination, dye penetrant inspection and MPI, weld samples have
been inspected using eddy current and ultrasound. The inspection results for these two
methods follow.

6.3.1 EDDYCURRENTTESTING
Two commercial eddy current systems, the Millstrong Lizard Topscan and the Hocking
Phasec 1.1, were used for inspection of the weld samples. For commercial reasons these
systems will not be referred to in the text by their respective names but as system A and
system B. Each sample was inspected and each defect detected was repeatedly sized
(depth, length and location were recorded) using each system in order to gather real data
for the fusion phase. It should be noted that in a real on-site inspection, only one numerical
datum from each instrument may be available and would be necessary for fusion. From the
27 defects present in our experiments, six defects were not detected by system B. In such
an event, one can see that no fusion of information is therefore possible as only system A
provided information. The defects undetected included root crack, an intermittent root
crack and a HAZ crack.

Estimation of sensor efficiency

The inspection of calibration slots was performed in order to build a database of the
efficiency of each sensor to detect a specific defect. As expected, the readings from each
instrument on the same defect were different.
The graphs of estimated calibration slot depth against actual depth for systems A and B
are shown in Figs 6.3-6.6. One can see that the measurements with system A appear very

System A
Estimated Depth / mm

Actual Depth / mm
Fig. 6.3 Plot of the average estimated depth (and standard error) vs. actual depth for repeated
sizings of three calibration slots with eddy current system A
 System B
Estimated Depth / mm

Actual Depth / mm
Fig. 6.4 Plot of the average estimated depth (and standard error) vs. actual depth for repeated
sizings of three calibration slots with eddy current system B

System A
Estimated Length / mm

Actual Length / mm
Fig. 6.5 Plot of the average estimated length (and standard error) vs. actual length for repeated
sizings of three calibration slots with eddy current system A
 System B
Estimated Length / mm

Actual Length / mm
Fig. 6.6 Plot of the average estimated length (and standard error) vs. actual length for repeated
sizings of three calibration slots with eddy current system B

scattered and that the deeper the defect, the more scattered the data and the higher the
standard error associated with them. For both systems, the deeper the calibration slot, the
wider was the spread of estimated depth. The lowest error is 0.22 mm associated with the
depth of 0.57 mm (Fig. 6.7).
From analysis of estimated length against actual length of the calibration slots, it can be
said that system A provides very accurate measurements compared to system B. Small
standard errors associated with each value also show the high accuracy of system A over
system B. System B appears to overestimate defect length; this may be due to the design of

Actual Depth / mm
Estimated Depth / mm
Fig. 6.7 Diagram showing increasing error with increasing defect depth for measurements with
system A
the system, which does not provide the user with a reference point that is easily
identifiable. The automatic calculation, by the instrument, of the length and depth
measurements was not found to be sufficiently adequate and accurate. There is such a
disparity in the estimation of defect length between system A and system B that little
improvement is expected from the data fusion of length measurements. System A will
always have a higher weight than B associated with it and information from system B will
therefore be discarded. For this reason fusion of depth measurements will be investigated
in more detail than that of length. Moreover, in relation to fracture mechanics estimates of
structural integrity, the depth is an important parameter to measure accurately when
performing an inspection, as the inspector is required to calculate the degree of penetration
of the defect through the material and the remaining undamaged thickness, essential
factors affecting strength.

Gaussian normal distribution

From repeated measurements performed on calibration slots, the Gaussian normal
distribution associated with an NDT system is assumed and estimated from the sample
mean x and the standard deviation a.2 The normal probability density function f ( x ) is
given by
I l-(x-x)2\
/(jc) = ——= exp — 2 for -oo < x < +00 (6.1)
V2jrcr \ 2a J
The Gaussian normal distributions for the length and depth for both systems for the
calibration slot 40.28 mm long and 1.96 mm deep are given in Fig. 6.8. One can see from
these graphs that both systems are in agreement regarding the defect depth. It also appears
that system B has more support than system A for the depth estimation. Regarding defect
length, both systems appear to be in disagreement, with system A presenting a high and
narrow probability density function (therefore with a smaller standard deviation) and
system B with a much lower support regarding the defect length. Prior to data fusion and
without the use of MPI, no conclusion can be made regarding which system gives the best
length estimate. It can be seen from the graph that system A will always have the strongest
probability function regardless of the accuracy of system B.
The normal probability distribution graphs for the depth of the calibration slots can be

System A System B System A System B

Defect
Defect Deoth / mm ^"B'*1 ' mm

Fig. 6.8 Normal probability density function for systems A and B for a 40.28 mm x 1.96 mm
calibration slot
transformed into the standard normal distribution by means of the equation

*-^ (6-2)
O
and the function O(z) can be plotted:

0(z) = -L exp(^) y (6.3)

V27T \ 2 /

This transformation has the effect of centring the normal distribution at zero. The reason
for this transformation is that the probability associated with any defect depth can be
calculated using Z values and statistical tables. The graphs of normal probability density
function confirm the previous observations that as the defect depth decreases, system B
becomes more precise compared to system A, in terms of standard error and probability.
The relative probabilities associated with each system for different defect depths are
summarised in Table 6.2. It can be seen that the probabilities for each system increase,
although the probability for system B increases much faster than that for system A.
Therefore, more belief is given to the measurements of small shallow defects sized with
system B.

The x2 test
A x2 (chi-squared) test was performed in order to estimate the degree to which the signal
output from eddy current NDT systems A and B could be modelled using a Gaussian
normal distribution.3 The # 2 test was performed on the data collected from inspection of
calibration slots. The graphs resulting from the x2 test are shown in Fig. 6.9. It appears
from this test that the Gaussian normal distribution is a good approximation to model
sensor output and calculated probability associated with it.
The x2 test depends upon the characteristics of the sample distribution. It assesses the
difference between measured and expected values. The comparison between the measured
and expected values is made by calculating the x2 statistic, and is given by

I'-t^l <6.4,
/=1 Ci
where ra, and ef are the measured and expected values respectively.4 With large samples,
the x2 statistic approximates to a continuous x2 distribution. Comparison between the x2
statistic and a x2 distribution provides a measure of the probability of the distribution of

Table 6.2 Probability values for systems A and B for different

depth measurements

Defect depth/mm Probability, system A Probability, system B

2.00 0.10 0.14

1.00 0.14 0.22
0.50 0.18 0.40
 Distribution
Distribution

Depth / mm Depth /mm

measured expected measured expected

Fig. 6.9 Chi-squared test on calibration slots for depths of 1.96 and 1.00 mm for system A

differences between measured and expected values. A # 2 distribution is an asymmetrical

continuous distribution which behaves as a probability distribution.
The plots of the measured and expected frequency distributions of depth values for two
calibration slots are shown in Fig. 6.9. The area under the curve represents the relative
frequency with which specific values of x2 occur. The x2 statistic is a cumulative statistic
process. Once x2 has been calculated, it is compared to the #2 distribution. This is known
as the x2 test. This test is used to examine the hypothesis that the distribution is a normal
distribution.
From the #2 test it was estimated that the distribution of depth measurements can be
considered to approximate to a Gaussian normal distribution for 72 per cent and 88 per
cent for the 1.96 mm and 1.00 mm deep calibration slots. More data would be required to
make a definitive statement, but with limited measurements the Gaussian normal
distribution appears to be a good approximation.
From the # 2 test applied to length measured on calibration slots, a 78 per cent degree of
confidence that all three calibration slots can be modelled using a Gaussian normal
distribution was achieved. The distribution of length measurements can be considered to
approximate a Gaussian normal distribution.
The x2 test shows that for a 0.53 mm deep calibration slot, the estimation of Gaussian
normal distribution is correct at 76 per cent which reflects the small spread of measured
values. On the other hand the measurements on the 1.96 and 1.00 mm deep slots cannot be
correctly estimated as a Gaussian normal distribution. System B appears to be more
accurate than system A, with measurements of shallow defects compared to deeper
defects. It cannot be said that the depth measurement being approximated using a Gaussian
normal distribution is incorrect, nor can it be said that it is correct. At this stage, this
approximation will be made in order to combine information from both systems in a
similar manner.
The x2 test performed on the length measurement for system B showed that the
Gaussian normal distribution was correct up to 40 per cent. Because system B does not
give regular consistent measurements of defect length, this can explain the low values of
correctness compared to system A. In general terms and in order to implement NDT data
fusion, the measurements for these two systems can be assumed to be normally
distributed.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

In addition to the %2 test, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to determine how
well the estimated measurements of the depth and length of the calibration slots fit a
normal distribution for systems A and B. Unlike the %2 test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test is most suited to estimate the goodness-of-fit of a small number of samples. It tests
each datum individually and gives the degree of agreement between the distribution of the
estimated values and the normal distribution.5 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test compares
the estimated cumulative distribution function for a variable with a specified distribution
which may be normal. The test statistic is computed (using a statistical analysis and data
management software such as SPSS) from the largest difference between the estimated and
expected distribution functions. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are
summarised in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. Plots of the expected normal values against the
observed values are in Figs 6.10 and 6.11.
From Table 6.3, one can see that the distribution of depth measurement can be
considered to approximate to a normal distribution for systems A and B. The P values
from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test below 0.05 imply that a data set is not normally
distributed, while P values above 0.05 imply that a data set fits a normal distribution. In
our case, all P values are above the 0.05 threshold of non-normality, therefore there is no
evidence that the data from systems A and B are not normally distributed. The P values
below 0.05 presented in the system A column of Table 6.4 show that the distribution of the

Table 6.3 P values from the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test for depth measurements on
calibration slots measured by systems A and B

P values

Actual depth/mm System A System B

1.96 0.97 0.75

1.00 0.57 0.54
0.53 0.20 0.12

Table 6.4 P values from the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test for length measurements on
calibration slots measured by systems A and B

P values

Actual length/mm System A System B

40.28 0.04 0.80

19.81 0.02 0.31
10.23 0.31 0.40
 Normal Plots - System A Normal Plots - System B
Expected Normal
Expected Normal
Expected Normal

Observed value Observed Value

Fig. 6.10 Normal plots of the expected values against the observed values for depth measurements
on calibration slots 1.96 (top), 1.00 (middle) and 0.53 mm long (bottom) for systems A and B

length measurements for system A does not appear to follow a normal distribution. This is
due to the lack of precision of the length measurements performed with system A leading
to a grouping of results due to rounding. In this particular case the ^ 2 test is more
appropriate to estimate the degree of normality of the set of sample values. However, there
is no evidence which shows that the distribution of length measurement does not fit a
normal distribution for the estimated length measurements from system B.
In general it can be said that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test supports the possibility that
the spread of the measurements from NDT systems A and B does follow a normal
distribution.

Curve fitting
In order to apply the Bayesian and Dempster-Shafer theories to data from NDT systems A
and B, standard deviation values for any defect depth and length will have to be
 Normal Plots - System A Normal Plots - System B
Expected Normal
Expected Normal
Expected Normal

Observed value Observed Value

Fig. 6.11 Normal plots of the expected values against the observed values for length measurements
on calibration slots 40.28 (top), 19.81 (middle) and 10.23 mm long (bottom) for systems A and B

determined. From the data collected during the inspection of the calibration slots, a
mathematical function which will model the expected standard deviations of both systems
was calculated. The curve fitting operation computed using a type function of the form
y = ax2 + bx+ c was selected. A standard deviation can be associated with any depth
measurement, and using Gaussian normal distribution tables, the associated probability of
this measurement can be calculated. This information is necessary in order to implement
the fusion phase which is described in section 6.4.

6.3.2 ULTRASONICEXAMINATION
Ultrasonic examination was performed on two ferritic samples using a Staveley Sonic 136
ultrasonic system and 45°, 60° and 70° probes. Three defects were studied: a slag inclusion
and a lack of side wall fusion (LOSWF) on a plate and a toe crack on a pipe. Each
 Toe crack - P3075

45 Deg. Probe 60 Deg. Probe

/W

Lack of side wall fusion • PL3071

45 Deg. Probe 70 Deg. Probe

/to

Slag inclusion. PL3071

46 Deg. Probe 60 Deg. Probe 70 Deg. Probe

/to

Defect Length / mm

Fig. 6.12 Normal probability density function for ultrasonic inspections

detected defect was repeatedly sized using the 6 dB drop technique, and the average length
estimation for multiple probe angles is summarised in Table 6.5.
A Gaussian normal distribution, similar to the one described for eddy current signals,
can be computed. The Gaussian normal distribution graphs related to these inspections are
in Fig. 6.12. One can see that although average defect lengths from different probe angles
are in relative agreement for the slag inclusion and LOSWF, measurements are very
different from the actual length given by the manufacturer. However, the length of the
surface breaking crack estimated with a 60° probe appears to be close to the value
estimated by the manufacturer, but this greatly depends on the sizing method used.
A x2 test was performed for each probe angle and the one with the best estimate of
sensor output modelling using a Gaussian normal distribution will be selected for data
fusion. For data fusion purposes, since it is intended to combine information from eddy
current and ultrasonic data, the angle probe with the highest probability of correctness for
toe crack measurement (i.e. the 45° probe) was chosen.
Because of the small set of measurements from ultrasonic inspections, a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed in addition to the %2 test to determine if these
measurements fit a normal distribution. The P values from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
are summarised in Table 6.6.
The P values from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are all above the 0.05 threshold of
non-normality, therefore it is likely that the measurements from the ultrasonic probes do
not follow a normal distribution.

Table 6.5 Results of ultrasonic inspections

Defect Actual Probe angle/ Estimated

type length/mm degrees length/mm

Slag inclusion 22 45 31.75 ±1.45

Slag inclusion 22 60 34.80 ±1.82
Slag inclusion 22 70 32.15 ±1.76
LOSWF 19 45 26.30 ± 2.00
LOSWF 19 70 23.20 ±2.67
Toe crack 29 45 32.35 ± 2.92
Toe crack 29 60 29.90 ±2.71

Table 6.6 P values from the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test for different angle probes and defect
types

Defect type Angle of probe P value

Slag inclusion 45 0.24

Slag inclusion 60 0.24
Slag inclusion 70 0.32
LOSWF 45 0.69
LOSWF 70 0.24
Toe crack 45 0.96
Toe crack 60 0.86
6.3.3 X-RAYRADIOGRAPHICINSPECTION
X-ray radiographic inspection was carried out on three weld samples, two plates and one
pipe, using a Scanray CPA 150 kV constant potential X-ray unit. The single wall, single
image technique was used for each sample with the film placed on the root side and the X-
ray source placed on the cap side for both plates. For the pipe sample, the X-ray source
was placed on the inside surface against the opposite wall with the film placed on the
outside (cap). Results of the radiographic inspection are summarised in Table 6.7 and can
be seen in Figs 6.13 and 6.14.
Because of its orientation and due to the fact that it is not a volumetric defect, the toe
crack of a plate sample was almost invisible to X-rays (even by placing the film on the cap
side of the weld) and would not have been detected in a standard radiographic examin-
ation. The length estimation of the volumetric defect (LOSWF) and toe crack on the pipe
is greatly dependent on the inspection method (i.e. ultrasound, eddy current or radiogra-
phy) and the sizing technique used (i.e. 6 dB or 20 dB drop method). Because of the
limited number of radiographic examinations performed, it was difficult to model a normal
distribution for defects detected by radiography. Despite this restriction and because of the
different physical properties of this NDT method, information from radiographic

Table 6.7 Results of X-ray radiographic inspection of

weld samples

Defect length on Defect length

Defect type radiograph/mm after correction/mm

Toe crack 10.8 10.4

LOSWF 27.0 25.9
Toe crack 28.0 26.9

Fig. 6.13 Positive radiographic image of a toe crack

 Fig. 6.14 Radiography of a lack of side wall fusion

examination has been combined with eddy current and ultrasonic data using both the
Bayesian and the Dempster-Shafer approaches.

6.4 NDT data fusion

Parallel multisensor fusion systems are well suited to gather information from identical or
dissimilar sensors to provide knowledge about the same measurand. The raw signals from
each sensor are processed in order to obtain an identical format suitable for fusion. The
data fusion centre gathers the information from multiple sensors and outputs information
on features such as defect length and depth. These features are then integrated and a
general fused feature generated. Fused features are fed into the decision centre which
applies inference rules and estimates a degree of certainty about a defect which helps in
decision making. Six stages can be identified in the inspection and data fusion phases
(Fig. 6.15).
Before developing a fusion procedure and applying inference rules, the format and class
of information provided by NDT sensors have to be clearly defined. Considering the case
of two different NDT sensors (from two different NDT instruments), two features can be
identified. The first is concerned with conflicting information such as 'defect' or 'no
defect' detection. In this case we are dealing with a simple binary problem of which the
output of fusing information is shown in Table 2.2. This binary approach can also be used
to add extra information at a data fusion pixel level (e.g. by combining surface defects
detected with eddy current and internal defects detected with ultrasound). The second is a
defect characteristic estimation feature which may occur when measuring two different
sizes on the same defect (e.g. depth or length).
In the approach described in this chapter, data fusion was first implemented using a
Bayesian statistical process similar to the one described in chapter 5. The Bayesian and
Dempster-Shafer approaches to data fusion described in sections 6.4.1-6.4.7 are
concerned with combining quantitative defect information such as depth and length. The
binary case 'defect/no defect' has already been implemented in chapter 5 with the
inspection of a helicopter rotor blade, and will therefore not be described in this chapter.6
The combination of qualitative information at pixel level has been implemented and is
discussed in section 6.4.6.
If a hard decision fusion system was considered, which is based only on the probability
Next Page