REVIEW OF DEFECT DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PROBABILISTIC

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

W. Zhao
Amey Vectra Ltd.
Warrington, UK

A. Stacey
Offshore Safety Division
Health & Safety Executive
London, UK

ABSTRACT A number of major NDE research projects have been

The defect distribution is a particularly important
parameter in the application of probabilistic defect
assessment methods to the integrity assessment of
welded structures. However, the subject is complex and,
despite considerable research efforts in this area and the
availability of a significant body of data, this defect
distribution is subject to considerable variability and
uncertainty. This paper reviews the data in the literature,
providing a status review of defect distributions and the
identification of areas requiring further investigation, with a
view to assisting with the future development of
probabilistic defect assessment methods.
INTRODUCTION
Defects are inherent to the welding process and can
cause structural failure by fatigue crack growth and
fracture. Consequently offshore structures are subjected
to extensive inspection for weld defects during fabrication
and subsequently in service, including after repair. The
probability of defects being present depends on many
parameters, such as fabrication techniques and quality
control, NDT methods and requirements, reliability of the
methods (i.e. probability of detection, POD, and sizing,
POS) and the operators.
undertaken over the years with a view to determining POD
and POS distributions. Major NDE projects include PISC
[1-2], NORDTEST [3-10], NIL [11-14], work conducted by
the UCL NDE Centre for offshore structures [15], ICON
[16-19] and TIP [20-21]. These projects were reviewed in
the SINTAP project [22].
It is apparent that there is a need to collate information on
available defect distributions and data with a view to
identifying and developing suitable generic distributions
for defect assessment. Some progress on the gathering
of information on defect distributions has been made in
the SINTAP project. Further work is to be undertaken in
the current initiative to revise BS7910:1999 [23] and in the
FITNET project [24]. This paper reviews defect
distributions in the literature and makes a number of
recommendations for future work. Aspects covered
include initial defect size, initial aspect ratio, defect sizing
error, fabrication defects, probability of detection (POD)
and surface / embedded defects.
INITIAL DEFECT SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Probability distributions for initial microscopic
surface defect size

Probabilistic defect assessment methods are a useful tool
for the evaluation of structural integrity of welded
structures. However, the effective application of defect
assessment methods requires reliable information on the
defect distribution and careful selection of the defect
distribution. Each of the factors determining the defect
distribution in a component may be influenced by a
number of basic variables. It is often not possible to
model all the variations. It is, however, desirable that any
function used to describe the defect size distribution
should be as accurate as possible at the tail of the
distribution.
Some key models of the initial microscopic surface defect
size, based on exponential, Weibull and lognormal
functions, are listed in Table 1. Considerable uncertainties
exist in these models. For example, the Marshal model
[25-26] gives results several magnitudes higher than that
given by the Becher and Hansen [27] model in the
probability of small defects.
The Marshall Exponential model [25-26]
Among many models for the initial microscopic defect size
distribution, the Marshall model is perhaps the most
typical one. It is expressed as an exponential form:

1 Copyright©2002 by ASME
 1 a (1)
f a (a ) = exp( - )
am am
Distribution
where a is the defect size, Investigator Mean SD Occurrence
am is the mean defect size and equals 6.25 mm Type
(mm) (mm)
for the database considered in the Marshall Marshall Exponential 6.25 6.25 3.65 defect per
report. [25][26] vessel
Bokalrud and Exponential 0.11 0.11 16 cracks per
Karlsen [29] metre
A similar model is adopted in the R6 method [28]. Becher & Lognormal 1.81 1.78
Hansen [27]
Bokalrud and Karlsen [29] DNV [30] Weibull > 0.1
Bokalrud and Karlsen measured undercuts in butt-welded Recho[31] Lognormal 0.089 0.0887
plates of thickness from 10 to 25 mm and reproduced the SD – Standard deviation
depths of the undercuts on replicas from silicon rubber.
From the total of 827 randomly selected measurement Table 1: Initial microscopic surface defect size
points, 502 measurements revealed no undercuts. From distribution models
the remaining 325 locations an exponential distribution
with a mean value of 0.11 mm was fitted to the histogram Extreme distributions of the Initial defect size
of measured undercuts. The majority of the undercuts
were less than 0.5 mm deep. The use of extreme defect size distributions makes it
possible to focus on those larger cracks in a certain
The DNV Weibull model [30] population that are likely to cause failure.
A Weibull distribution is used:
The R6 model for the extreme defect size [28]
g -1 g The R6 method provides an extreme value distribution of
g æ a ö æ a ö (2)
f a (a ) = çç ÷÷ exp{ - çç ÷÷ } the defect depth derived from data obtained by extensive
am è am ø è am ø ultrasonic examination of Magnox reactor components. A
Gumbel Type II distribution is used:
am is set to be 0.1 mm. When g = 1, this becomes an
exponential distribution. æ æ a ö-B ö
f a ( a ) = A B Ba - B +1
exp ç - ç ÷ ÷ (5)
ç è Aø ÷
The Lognormal Model by Becher and Hansen [27] è ø
Becher and Hansen (1974) proposed a lognormal model
as
where a is crack depth,
1 é (ln (a/l ))
2
ù (3) A and B are constants.
f a (a ) = exp ê - ú
s aH 2p ë 2s 2 û
The DNV model [30]
In the DNV Weibull model as in equation 2, If small
with l = 1.3 mm and s = 0.82.
surface defects are believed to be present in any
significant number, then the prevailing crack will emerge
æ 1 æ t öö (4)
H = 1 - 0 . 5 e r fc çç ln ç ÷ ÷÷ from the largest or extreme defect. In this case, a more
è s 2 è l øø peaked initial distribution, with g > 1, is to be expected.

This gives a mean of 1.82 mm and a SD of 1.78 mm.
Recho [31]
Recho analysed NDT inspection results for 829
measurements of butt and fillet weld undercut depths and
fitted to a lognormal distribution with an average value of
0.089 mm and a standard deviation of 0.0887. Rocho
found that the “measurable” defects (a > 0.05 mm) only
exist in 325 out of the 829 measurements.
Moan et al. [32]
More recently, Moan et al derived the mean initial defect
size and mean detectable defect size from defect data
from more than 40000 in-service MPI and EC underwater
inspections as listed in Table 2. Moan et al compared
their results with work by Bokalrud and Kalsen [29] and
found that the main difference comes from the sample
size. The data from Moan is based approximately on the
maximum defect size per three joints. Thus, it is an
extreme distribution per 3 joints by the transformation
through the following formula:

2 Copyright©2002 by ASME
 E [ l 0 , max ] = l 0 {ln( 3 N j ) + 0 .557 } (6) study of Kountouris and Baker [37][40] and the study of
Rogerson and Wong [44] are obtained from the actual
where Nj is the number of defects per joint. offshore structure, the related detailed discussion is
presented in the section for fabrication defects.
For a joint with 1.4 metre weld, the number of cracks
would be 22.4, according to Bokalrud and Kalsen [29]. Bokalrud and Karlsen [29]
Moan et al [32] used the exponential distribution to model Bokalrud and Karlsen studied the data from UT test
results of a randomly selected weld length of 3200m out
the extremes, but they also argued that theoretically the
of 40,000 total weld length. A semi-normal distribution
Gumbel distribution should be used.
was fitted to the data. In addition, a semi-normal
distribution function for eccentricity is also proposed.
Distribution
Sample size
Type Mean (mm) Distribution
Exponential 0.94 Largest crack in three joints Investigator Mean SD Sample size
Type
Exponential 0.38 Largest hot spot crack per joint (mm) (mm)
Bokalrud & 3200 out of
Seminormal 0 2.88
Karlsen [29] 40,000 welds
Table 2: Extreme distribution models for Initial 1000m weld with
surface defect size Rogerson &
Weibull 1.81 1.78
defect rate of
Wong [44] 7 per 10 m
before NDT
Initial aspect ratio distribution
Kountouris &
Exponential 27,000 m
Baker [37] [40]
Very little information is available on the quantification of
the initial aspect ratio distribution of defects, particularly in Table 3: Initial embedded defect size distribution
offshore structures. It is important to make a distinction models
between this and the aspect ratio for in-service defects,
which is affected by the formation of larger cracks as a Defect Rates
result of fatigue crack coalescence. A few distributions
based on NDE test results obtained within the pressure Defect rates are important in the determination of the
vessel industry include: overall reliability of a structure. However, relatively little
(1) lognormal distribution of z =c/a by Harris [33] : attention is paid to its accuracy.

é æ æ 2
ù Harris [33-34] assumed that the number of cracks in a
öö
ê ç ln ç z z ÷ ÷ ú (7) body of volume V is a Poisson distribution with a mean
C è m ø ø
f a (a ) = exp ê - è ú
z 2p m ê 2m 2 ú
ê ú Pvm = 10-4 /in3 (9)
ë û
Therefore, the probability of having one or more defect is:
where zm = 1.336
C = 1.419 and m = 0.5382 Pv = 1- e-VPvm
(2) normal distribution of a/c by Bruckner et al [35] from (10)
NDE data with a mean of 0.5 and SD of 0.16.
The probability of n defects occurring in a weld under a
(3) Weibull model [28] of c/ a by the R6 method.
Poisson model is:
P ( X = n) = e - l ln / n! (11)
Lukjanov and Korobstov [36] however, proposed a
Weibull distribution model for defect length based on their
study of initial defect size and multiple coalescence: where l is the mean rate of occurrence of all sizes.

1 æ 2l + 2 ö
0 . 57
é æ 2l + 2 ö 1 . 57
ù (8) Marshall [26] found that there are 3.65 defects of all sizes
f a (2l ) = ç ÷ exp ê - ç ÷ ú per vessel.
3è 6 ø ëê è 6 ø ûú

Bokalrud and Karlsen [29] found the defect occurrence

Embedded Defects
Much less information is available on probabilistic
distributions for embedded defects. Some major efforts
are summarised in Table 3. As the defect data for the
rate to be 16 defects per metre, including rather small
cracks. Rogerson and Wong [44] found that the defect
rate in a North Sea structure before final NDT and repair
was 0.7/m (i.e. 7 defects per 10 m of weld), reduced to
0.2/m after final NDT and repair.

3 Copyright©2002 by ASME
 Defect Weibull Parameters NDE
Joint Investigator
Type Range a b e Method
Planar 5.1 1.4 0.1
Embedded as
Non-planar 0.93 0.7 0.1
fabricated Tubular joints MPI and Rogerson &
All 3.3 0.95 0.1 1 km welds UT Wong [44]
Embedded After NDE and
1.22 0.8 0.1
repair
Surface breaking crack depth 1.85 0.85 0.1 Ship plate Becher &
X-ray
Slag inclusion crack length 7.5 0.45 2.0 Hansen [27]
Depth 7 2.18 0
Lack of fusion Tubular joints
Length 3.41 2.14 0 UT Burdekin &
Depth for 1.9
Lack of Depth 8.13 2.76 0 Townend [43]
km welds
penetration Length 3.61 3.65 0

Table 4: Parameters of the Weibull model (Equation 12) for fabrication defect distributions

Kountouris and Baker [40] found that the defect rate, as a
ratio of defect length to the total length of weld, lies in the
range 0.010 to 0.014. They also found that defect rates for
different yards are found to be radically different. The
amount of NDE was found not to affect the defect rates.
FABRICATION DEFECTS
Records from fabrication sites often show different
distributions, as different factors are present. For
instance, some results incorporate NDT reliability and
even defect repair. Nevertheless, in general the Weibull
distribution shows a good fit with data with the lognormal
distribution as the second favourite. While the initial
defect distribution discussed above provides models for
application at the microscopic level, the fabrication defect
results provide useful support information for uncertainty
modelling in specific or macroscopic applications. It has
been found that a general Weibull distribution in the form
of equation 12 will fit the data well. Some of the Weibull
parameters are listed in Table 4.
æ a -e b ö
Fa (a) = 1 - expç - ( ) ÷ (12)
è a -e ø
Becher and Hansen [27]
Becher and Hansen (1974) identified 242 defects from
347 radiographs (X-ray) corresponding to 72 m of welding
performed on hull plate with 22 to 26 mm thickness. They
fitted Weibull distributions to the length and depth
dimensions.
Rodrigues and Wong [41]
Rodrigues and Wong presented an analysis of data
obtained from node welds in four different North Sea
structures fabricated by different European fabricators.
Another set of data was obtained from the results of a
separate NDT inspection on one of the four structures,
there was a wide scatter in the number of defects per
metre. The data were from ultrasonic testing of 250 m of
welding. Exponential and Weibull distributions were fitted
to the defect length. However, the Weibull distribution
was considered to be a better fit to the data than the
exponential one as (a) it described all the data by the
same function type and (b) gives higher estimates than
the exponential distribution for the large defects and is
therefore more conservative.
Dufresne [42]
Dufresne analysed NDE results (UT and X-ray) obtained
from three European nuclear pressure vessel
manufacturers before repair. The data on defect length
show that the number of defects per weld varies between
0-50 and that the lognormal distribution is a good
approximation for defects larger than 20 mm. The
distribution for defect depth was not specified.
Burdekin and Townend [43]
Burdekin and Townend analysed ultrasonic NDT records
to determine the distribution of defect heights (lack of
fusion and lack of penetration). The records were for
100% ultrasonic NDT of 1.9 km of 440 manual metal arc
T-butt welds at tubular node intersections in a series of
jacket structures fabricated from BS 4360 grade 50D
steel. For these data, a Weibull distribution was found to
give a moderately good fit with a cumulative probability of
values equal to or less than size a (mm) given by
é æ a ö 2 . 39 ù (13)
F a (a ) = 1 - exp ê - ç ÷ ú
ëê è 7 . 38 ø úû

4 Copyright©2002 by ASME
Rogerson and Wong [44]
Rogerson and Wong carried out a detailed analysis of
embedded weld defects namely defect height, for one
particular structure in the North Sea and the survey
included about 1000 m of welding for 12 vertical node
joints and 6 horizontal node joints in the important splash
zone region of the structure. The data were obtained by
magnetic particle inspection and ultrasonic inspection
methods and were divided into planar and non-planar
defects.
Notably, Rogerson and Wong combined the study of
defect distribution with failure probability determination in
the context of NDT and repair. The Weibull distribution
gave a good fit for both planar and non-planar defect
height, particularly at the extreme values, deemed to be
the most important in their study. They concluded that
the NDT procedure should be only required to have a high
and consistent probability of detection of large defects.
This, however, should be viewed in the context of the
technological limit and requirement in both POD and
reliability analysis at the time.
Baker and Kountouris [37][38]
Baker and Kountouris analysed surface breaking defects
found by magnetic particle inspection in the lower hull of
the Conoco Tension Leg Platform. The length of the weld
inspected was of the order of 50 km. Weibull and
lognormal distributions were fitted to the data with an
explanation of the variations in defect sizes under the
influence of defect location, defect type, weld type,
positions in the structure, fabrication and welding process.
Analysis was undertaken on defect length, depth and
aspect ratio.
Baker and Kountouris also analysed embedded defects
found by ultrasonic testing for a weld length of the order of
27 km. The results indicated that the Weibull distribution
gave on average a better fit than the lognormal
distribution.
Baker [37] indicated that the occurrences of defects from
fabrication are dependent primarily on:
· weld type (joint geometry).
· weld process e.g. SAW, SMAW and GMAW.
· positions in the welds.
· welding procedures
Thurlbeck [45]
Thurlbeck analysed fabrication defects obtained from the
fabrication inspection records of two offshore steel jackets
in the North Sea fabricated in 1986 and 1991. The data
consisted of the results of magnetic particle inspection,
ultrasonic and radiographic testing of some 3800 welds of
total length of about 9.35 km. The data were divided into
5 Copyright©2002 by ASME
reportable and repairable defects and further into pre-
repair and post repair categories. It was also separated
according to inspection methods and whether the defects
were planar or non-planar. Among the findings, the
following two are particularly worth noting:
· the probability distributions for defect size were
generally similar to those reported in the literature.
The Weibull distribution gave a better fit but
sometimes there was little difference between the
different distributions.
· the effect of allowing for POD was to increase
significantly the estimated number of smaller defects
present in the jacket with an overall increase in the
numbers of defects and a reduction in the mean size
and standard deviation of defects.
PROBABILITY OF DETECTION (POD) DISTRIBUTIONS
Inspection reliability is an important assumption. Usually,
tests conducted in the laboratory to determine the
probability of defect detection (POD) can only model a
limited range of factors:
· inspection technology
· environmental condition, with the following three
levels:
1. laboratory
2. in air
3. underwater
· existence of multiple cracking or defect. Everything
else being equal, a part with two cracks is more likely
to fail the inspection than a part with only one crack.
· human factors
· mathematical uncertainties from the resultant crack
PDF after detection or inspection
· other geometric factors, e.g. plate thickness, crack
orientation, etc..
Mathematical POD models
Given the complex nature of the detection probability,
there are few numerical variables for the quantification of
uncertainty. Often, only the defect size is the only known
numerical value. Some models contain variables to
quantify the inspection quality with limited success.
Let POD(a) be the detection probability for crack larger
than the crack size a. Most POD models are in the form
POD(a) = 0 for a < ath,
POD(a) = f(a) for ath < a < au, (14)
POD(a) =1 for a > au,
where ath is threshold of detectability
au is the size with 100% detectability
If ad denotes the smallest detectable crack, the probability
of detecting a crack of size a is equal to the probability
that ad is smaller than a, i.e.
F a d ( a ) = POD ( a )
The POD curve is therefore identical to the distribution of
the smallest detectable crack size. In study carried out by
Marshall [25], the function name, B(a), is also used for the
probability of non-detection.
The Exponential Model
Marshall [25] gives the probability of not detecting a as
B(a) = 0.005 +5.53 exp(-0.16 * (a- ath))
ath is assumed to be zero.
and for the PVRC data the least square fit was
POD (a ) = 1 - exp{ - (a / 6 . 3 )} (19)
Townend [49] also stated that to account for the effects of
the defect detection function in the estimation of the
defects in the structure prior to NDT and repair, a discrete
approximation can be applied. He demonstrated this by
(15) the following example, if 20 defects have been detected in
the 10 mm to 20 mm size range and the detection
function gives a mean probability of detection for this size
of 0.8 then the expected actual number in this range
would be 25 defects.
DNV curve [30]
DNV introduced a series of POD curves as follows:
b
P(2c) = 1-1/(1+(2c/ X0) ) (20)
(16)
where X0 and b depend on the inspection scenario with
typical values listed in Table 6:

Madsen[47] used a shifted exponential distribution to Inspection scenario X0 b

model the POD as follows: MPI under water 2.950 0.905
MPI above water; ground test surface 4.030 1.297
æ a - a min ö MPI above water; not ground test 8.325 0.785
POD ( a ) = 1 - exp ç - ÷ (17)
l surface
è ø
for a > a min. . Eddy current 12.28 1.790
Table 6: DNV POD parameters
The parameter l is a measure of the quality of inspection
and has a value between 0 (perfect) and infinite (poor). Harris Lognormal model [33-34]
Some of the empirical factors of l are shown in Table 5. Harris used the data reported by Tang [50] for not
detecting a crack of size a. The data reported was in the
UCL has also been quoted to use l = 1.2. (Kirkemo [46]).
range a < 2.5 mm. Harris compared Weibull, lognormal
and Gamma function distributions and proposed a
Location lognormal model for crack POD in reactor piping:
Investigator Test condition Tubular in Butt weld
sea water in air é
1 æ a öù (21)
Lab TSC ACFM 0.7 0.21 POD ( a ) = 1 - erfc ên ln ç * ÷ ú
2 ë è a øû
Lab MPI 0.89
UCL [15] Lab Comex/Hocking
2.08 0.32
Eddy Current where a* is the crack with 50% chance being detected
Kirkemo [46] 1.0 – 1.4
Madsen [47] underwater MPI 1.3
Harris suggested a* = 1.6mm and n = 1.33.
MPI and EC at in-
Moan [48] service and sea 1.95 1.- 1.2
condition Harris [34] pointed out that the probability of not detecting
a surface defect would decrease as the defect size
Table 5: Quality parameter l for the POD curve increases and is nearly unity for small defects whereas it
asymptotically approaches zero with increasing defect
Townend [49] modelled and compared the performance of size. However, it is never equal to zero as there cannot
the PISC and the PVRC programms by minimizing the be absolute certainty that a defect will be detected. A
least squares errors. The best fit for the PISC data was modified expression, which also accounts for the two-
found to be dimensional nature of defects, is presented below:

POD (a ) = 1 - exp{ - (a / 57 )} (18) B (A ) = e +

1
2
(
(1 - e )erfc n ln A A * ) (22)

6 Copyright©2002 by ASME
 Statistical comparison of POD models
A* is the crack area which has 50% detection probability,
e is the probability of non-detection of very deep cracks Wolstenholme [54] compared different models for
and n is a parameter which controls the slope of the probability of detection curves for the mathematical
POD(a) line. uncertainties. Three distribution types are compared: 1)
exponential, 2) Weibull, and 3) log-odds. It is found that
Taking into consideration the false call probability, the exponential model remains adequate for the modelling
Heasler, Taylor and Doctor [51] proposed a logistic model of POD but it is less versatile than other multi-parameter
as follows: models. Wolstenholme also suggested that POD models
should be able to include false reporting.
-1
POD(a) = (1+ exp (-(a + b a))) (23)
Human Factors correction
Thus,
Human factors are more complex to define. Apart from
FCP = (1 - exp(-a))
-1
(24) competence of the inspector, there are also the elements
of expectation and correlation between different
Berens and Hovey [52] suggested a log-odds model for inspectors. Wall et al [55] applied a human reliability
the probability of leaving a defect in a vessel of the form correction to the theoretical POD as:

PODactual = POD model * H (28)

B (a ) = 1 (25)
(1 + exp( a + b ln a )
where H is the human error of POD.
where a is the defect size and a and b are constants.
A general equation was also suggested in a European
Multiplication models American workshop [56] as:
Dufresne [42] stated that the longer the defect, the greater
the number of crossings of the UT transducer and hence PODactual = PODintrinsic – g(application technique) –
the risk of missing a defect is reduced, such that - h(Human factor) (29)

Pn=1-(1-P1)2b/f
where P1 is the probability to detect at each crossing
Pn is the probability to detect at n crossing
2b is the defect length
f is the diameter of the beam.
The beam diameter is taken as 40 mm, and the 9 mm
defect length corresponds to 50% detection.
Temple [53] gave a model that includes many variables,
several inspection techniques Q and human variability. It
is given by
(26)
DEFECT SIZING ERROR MODELS
The measurement of defect dimensions by a non-
destructive examination device requires skill and is
governed by a large number of uncertainties and
limitations. The accuracy by which such measurements
are made is valid only for particular categories of defect
but information about the tendency to undersize or
oversize defects can be obtained by examining trends
between measured and actual sizes or means and
standard deviations of sizing errors (measured size -
actual size), when data is available.

é ù Sizing errors can have serious consequences since, if

1 + exp ê - å a * ú
êë i i ú
BQ = û
[ (
1 + exp å i a i x - x * i )]
where there are i parameters in x. The parameter
ai determines the sharpness of the boundary between
acceptance and rejection, the parameters xi* are the
values at which the probability of correct rejection reaches
0.5 if there was only that parameter present.
significant defects are overestimated, this could result in
(27) unnecessary repairs causing financial losses and possibly
lead to the introduction of further defects by the repair
process. Conversely, if significant defects are overlooked
this could have serious effects on overall structural
integrity. From a reliability analysis for the pressure
vessel with flaw, Simonen and Khaleel [57] have shown
that, although defect detectability is the most limiting
factor to reduce failure probability, the gross error in sizing
can negate the expected benefit of inspection methods.

7 Copyright©2002 by ASME
Jessop [58] used UT for flaw sizing in welds and found
that COV is about 20% and 30%. The worst case method
(a standard dB drop) exhibited the poorest accuracy with
a COV of 0.3. Other analyses of similar UT
measurements from less carefully controlled testing
situations produced COVs of double the above value.
COVs of 0.2 and 0.3 are, however, appropriate for
validated automatic or closely prescribed manual
ultrasonic testing procedures when using suitably qualified
and experienced personnel (as found in the nuclear power
industry).
Defect size errors can be modelled by either of the
following terms:
am = b1* ab2 * e
or
am = b1+ b2. a + e
with e representing errors whilst b1 and b2 are obtained
from regression analysis.
Heasler et al [51] found from PISC-II data that as
standard deviation does not go to zero when the defect
size is approaching zero, hence the second
representation of am is more appropriate.
Based on surface defects in a weld detected by an
ultrasonic device on aluminium specimens, Tang [50]
suggested the following calibration curve between actual
and measured defect depth.
E (C a | C m ) = 0 . 0592 + 0 . 839 C m for 0 < C m £ 0 . 2 in
This is a normal random variable with zero mean and
0.0342 inches standard deviation. The specimens were
precracked in fatigue to produce a small surface
thumbnail crack, they were inspected by NDT to
determine the sizes and locations of the flaws, then tested
to failure in a uniaxial tension test. The failed surface was
examined to determine the actual size of flaws.
Townend [49] looked at data of lengths of rail containing
defects that had been sized ultrasonically before being
removed from track. The actual defects were made
visible by breaking the length of rail open on a large
hydraulic press and then the actual defects were
measured using a steel rule. The data was then tested
for correlation between ultrasonic sizing error and defect
height in mm and linear regression analysis of the data
gave a least square line of sizing error versus actual
defect size as,
Error = 13.86 – 0.54 (actual size)
Errors about this line were normally distributed with a
mean of 7.2 mm and a standard deviation of 6.28 mm. It
was found that small defects were overestimated in size
whereas large defects were underestimated in size. The
crossover from overestimating to underestimating
occurred at 25.67mm.
Haines et al [59] confirmed the finding by Townend in the
review for PISC II round robin test but he also pointed out
that undersizing occurs more frequently than oversizing
for rejectable defects.
Kountouris and Baker [39] analysed data on fatigue
cracks from four typical tubular welded joints published by
the UK Department of Energy. All cracked specimens
(30) were detected by magnetic particle inspection and
subsequently sized using manual ultrasonic and other
(31) techniques. The true dimensions of the defects were
evaluated by destructive sectioning. It was found that for
both defect depth and length there is one measurement
that deviates significantly from the rest of the data. A
linear regression analysis of the measured dimensions
and the true dimension was performed on all four cases
(including and excluding the extreme observations).
It was found from the results that, for the case of defect
depth in the two cases (including and excluding the
extreme observation), sizing errors are dependent on the
actual defect size. Defects of depth up to 7 mm were
found to be overestimated whereas defects greater than
this value were underestimated. For the defect length,
the reliable case was found to be the one that excludes
(32) the extreme observation and in this case the defects were
usually overestimated.
Osage, Wirsching and Mansour [60] used data from crack
tip diffraction measurements of defect depth to model the
defect depth using a lognormal distribution. The mean
defect sizes were assumed to be located at the midpoint
between the upper and lower limits of the reported
measurements. The standard deviation was set equal to
the upper limit minus the mean value divided by 3. The
resulting COV was found to be a function of mean defect
depth:
am = (Upper Limit + Lower Limit)/2.0
SD(a) = (Upper Limit - Lower Limit)/6.0 (34)
The COV was found to lie in the range 0.2 - 0.3.
EQUIVALENT INITIAL DEFECT SIZE
The information revealed large diversity of the initial
(33)
defect size distributions from various investigators. Very
often, the fundamental defect size distribution cannot be
8 Copyright©2002 by ASME
verified by normal NDT methods. Recho [31] proposed a
method to backtrack the initial defect size distribution from
fatigue experiment results of welded joints by using LEFM
and Miner’s sum.
Palmerg et al [61] used the concept of equivalent initial
flaw size in the assessment of aircraft structures, based
on a reversal of the time to crack initiation (TTCI)
distribution, which itself is assumed to be a Weibull
distribution. Palmerg et al.[61], however, identified three
problems when using this method: (1) applicability for the
short crack range, (2) the threshold value, and (3) this
model may be different for different design variables and
load spectra. Therefore, it is not an inherent material
representation.
Yazdani and Albrecht [62] used the AASHTO allowable S-
N curve tests data and integrated the Paris crack growth
equation backwards to obtain the equivalent initial defect
size and subsequently fitted a lognormal distribution to the
data.
This equivalent initial defect size approach has the benefit
of relating to the final damage status and using the
existing information in experiments without knowing the
precise defect distribution. However, apart from the
problems raised by Palmerg, the S-N curve and the
fracture mechanics parameters are also subjects of great
uncertainties.
DISCUSSION
An extensive review has been carried out of defect
distributions for reliability analysis. The sketch in Figure 1
shows three generalized distribution models for defect
size. From the review in this paper, the following points
can be made:
Initial defect distribution fa(a0)
modelled by Exponential
Probability density function
Detected defect distribution fa(a0) x
POD(a) modelled by Weibull
Extreme defect distribution
modelled by Gumbel
Defect size a
Figure 1: Illustration of defect size distribution
models
9 Copyright©2002 by ASME
(1) The initial microscopic defect distribution tends to be
exponential but there is considerable uncertainty in
the distribution parameters.
(2) The defect distributions from fabrication records are
more likely to be Weibull distribution. The difference
to initial microscopic defect distribution can be due to
(a) the inspection efficiency on smaller defects
(b) sampling effects
(c) lack of growth in small defects by fatigue
threshold
(3) The distribution of extreme defect size can be
modelled by the Gumbel distribution.
(4) The defect rate is subject to great uncertainty.
Furthermore, different researchers used different
definitions of defect rates, e.g.:
-4 3
· per volume: 10 / in - Harris [34]
· per pressure vessel: 3.65 - Marshall [26]
· per metre: 16 - Bokalrud and Karlsen [29]
· length per metre of weld: 0.01 to 0.014 – Baker
[38]
· per joint: 1/3 - Moan [32]
(5) In general, the POD curve follows a monotonic
incremental distribution function and is affected by
many variables. The simplistic exponential function
still represents an adequate form. However due
considerations should be given to inspection quality,
human errors and multiple probabilistic events.
(6) Defect sizing errors can adequately be represented
by either normal or lognormal distributions, being
functions of defect size and category and inspection
methods. Small defects tend to be oversized while
large defects tend to be undersized. The COV of
sizing error can be up to 0.3.
(7) Given the uncertain nature of the defect distribution,
an equivalent defect size distribution obtained by
backtracking experimental results may give some
practical results. The disadvantage is that the basic
parameters in LEFM and S-N curves methods used
in the backtracking are themselves subjects of
considerable uncertainty.
FUTURE STUDIES
It is apparent from the work reviewed above that further
work is required to develop defect distributions that can be
used with greater confidence. Areas considered to merit
further attention are described as follows.
Sensitivity study of defect size distributions
Defect size population in welds can be divided into
approximately three types of defects, small, medium and
large:
Ÿ small defects make a large percentage of the initial
defect size population. Under fatigue loading, these
defects will either coalesce to form larger cracks or
stop growing below the threshold.
Ÿ medium size defects can remain undetected and grow
to form large cracks following the Paris Law.
Ÿ large defects are most likely to be detected and
rejected from initial inspections. Hence, their initial
distribution may be truncated. However, the
consequence of missing the defect will also be
relatively large.
This review has shown different defect size distributions
from fabrication records and from initial defect
measurements primarily due to uncertainties in small
defect. However, failure probability may be dominated by
larger cracks.
In order to derive generic form of defect size distributions
for practical application, the sensitivity of structural
reliability to the uncertainties of distribution parameters
especially in small defect size region should be
understood. The sensitivity study should be carried out
with due consideration to all relevant variables, e.g. defect
rates, fatigue growth, size effects of fracture toughness
etc.
Harmonisation of description of defect size distributions
This review has shown that although a large amount of
research has been carried out on defect size distribution,
some of the data are of limited use as they have been
obtained under different assumptions. Figure 1 shows
three different types of distribution for defect size with
three different sampling methods. It is therefore
necessary to develop uniform procedures for the
determination of defect size distributions.
Investigation of defect rates
The overall failure probability of a structure is the product
of defect rate and the conditional failure probability for
given defect distribution. However, the quantification of
defect rate is far from certain in current literature.
10
Model uncertainty of POD curves
Given the simplistic form of the POD curve, the POD
curve itself has a large model uncertainty. The principal
challenges are:
Ÿ identification and quantification of model uncertainties
Ÿ reduction of model uncertainties, e.g. by database to
match the POD curve to on-site conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Probabilistic structural integrity assessments are highly
sensitive to the defect distribution data and consequently
a significant amount of research on the subject of NDE
distributions has been, and continues to be, carried out.
The extent of the research reflects the complexity and the
uncertainties associated with the subject.
This paper has presented a review of available
information on defect distributions and made
recommendations for future work with the aim of
facilitating the development of guidance for incorporation
into defect assessment codes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) for permission to publish this paper. The
views expressed are those of the authors and not
necessarily of the HSE.
REFERENCES
[1] PISC-: Nichols, R.W. and Crutzen, S., Ultrasonic
inspection of heavy section steel components, The
PISC II final report, Elsevier Applied Science,
Barking UK, ISBN 1-85166-155-7, 1988.
[2] PISC-: Lessons learned from PISC-III, Report No
EVR 16366 EN, Draft, 1/2/96. PISC-I: Evaluation of
the sizing results of I'2 flaws of the full scale vessel
installation, PISC III report No 26 - Action 2 - Phase I,
JRC report No EUR 15371 EN, 1993
[3] NORDTEST: Førli, O., Development and
optimisation of VDT for practical use – Nordtest NDT
programme - project presentation, 5e iVordiska NDT
Symposiet Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number 1IW-
V-967-91, 1990.
[4] NORDTEST: Førli, O., Development and
optimisation of NDT for practical use – Optimal NDT
efforts and use of NDT results, 5e Nordiska NDT
Symposiet Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-
968-91, 1990
Copyright©2002 by ASME
[5] NORDTEST: Førli, O., Development and
optimisation of VDT for practical use – Nordtest NDT
programme - project presentation, 5e Nordiska NDT
Symposiet Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number 1IW-
V-967-91, 1990.
[6] NORDTEST: Førli, O., Development and
optimisation of NDT for practical use – Optimal NDT
efforts and use of NDT results, 5e Nordiska NDT
Symposiet Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-
968-91, 1990
[7] NORDTEST: Førli, O., Development and
optimisation of NDT for practical use - Reliability of
radiography and ultrasonic testing, 5e Nordiska NDT
Symposiet Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-
969-91, 1990
[8] NORDTEST: Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J.,
Reliability of magnetic particle and liquid penetrant
inspection, IIW Report Number IIW-V-970-91, 1990
[9] NORDTEST: Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J.,
Reliability of surface inspection techniques for
pressurised components, SMIRT 11 Transactions
Vol.G No GI5/5, Tokyo, August 1991.
[10] NORDTEST: Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J.,
Reliability of surface inspection techniques, Proc.
12th World Conf. on Non-Destructive Testing,
Elsevier Publ. Amsterdam, 1989SMIRT 11
Transactions Vol.G No G15/5, Tokyo. August 1991
[11] NIL, Evaluation of some non-destructive examination
methods for welded connections with defects, NIL
report NDO 86-23, 1986 (in Dutch)
[12] NIL, Advanced flaw size measurement in practice,
NIL report GF 91-04, 1991 (in Dutch)
[13] NIL, Non destructive testing of thin plates, NIL report
NDP 93-40, 1995. NIL, NDT of thin plates -
evaluation of results, NIL report NDP 93-38 Rev. 1,
1995 (in Dutch)
[14] NIL, NDT-Regulations, NIL Report NDP 95-85, 1995
[15] UCL: Visser, W., Dover, W.L. & Rudlin, J.R., Review
of UCL underwater inspection trials, HSE OTN 96
179, 1996
[16] ICON: Project "ICON", Final Report, Contract No
OG/00098/90/FR/UK/IT, EC DG XII Programme
THERMIE, Report No S.94.006.03, Issued by
IFREMER, 12/94.
[17] ICON: Offshore Technology Report OTN-96-150,
Intercalibration of offshore NDT (ICON), Commercial
in confidence PENIS/2736, HSE, August 1996.
[18] ICON: W.J. and Rudlin, J.R., Defect characterisation
and classification for the ICON inspection reliability
trials, Proc. 1996 OiVAE, Vol. II, p.503-508, 1996.
11
[19] ICON: Rudlin, J.R. and Dover, W.D., Performance
trends for POD as measured in the ICON project,
Proc. 1996 OMAE, Vol. II, p.509-513, 1996.
[20] TIP: Rudlin, J. and Austin, J., Topside inspection
project: Phase I Final report; Offshore Technology
Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996
[21] TIP: Rudlin, J., Myers, P. and Etube, L., Topside
inspection project: Phase II Final report; Offshore
Technology Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996
[22] SINTAP Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure
for European Industry, BRITE EURAM BE 95-1426,
Contribution to TASK 3.4: Compilation of NDE
effective data”, SINTAP Task 3.4, Crutzen, S. et al,
1999
[23] BSI , BS 7910 “Guide on methods for assessing the
acceptability of flaws in metallic structures”, 1999
[24] FITNET, A European Fitness-for-Service Thematic
Network, sponsored by the European Union.
[25] Marshall W., "An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR
Pressure Vessels," Report by a study group,
available from H.M. Stationary Office, London, United
Kingdom, 1976
[26] Marshall for UKAEA, “An assessment of the integrity
of PWR pressure vessel”, Second report by a study
group under the chairmanship of Dr. W Marshall,
March, 1982
[27] Becher, P. E. and Hansen, B., “Statistical evaluation
of defects in welds”, danish Institurte of Welding,
1974
[28] Harrison R. P., Loosemore, K., and Milne I.,
"Assessment of the integrity of structures containing
defects." CEGB Report R/H/R6, Central Electricity
Generating Board, U.K., 1976
[29] Bokalrud, T. and Karlsen, A., “Probabilistic fracture
mechanics evaluation of fatigue failure from weld
defects in butt weld joints”, Proc. Conf. on fitness for
purpose validation of welded constructions, London,
paper 28, 1981
[30] DNV, DNV Classification Notes No. 30.6, “Structural
Reliability Analysis of Marine Structures”, July 1992
[31] Recho, N., “Potential use of fracture mechanics in
the fatigue design of fillet welded joints”, Proc. 5th
European Conf. on Fracture, Lisbon, Vol. 1, 1984
[32] Moan, T., Zhong W., and Vardal, O. T., “Initial crack
depth and POD data based on underwater inspection
of fixed steel platforms”, IOCOSSAR2001, Newport
Beach, June 2001
Copyright©2002 by ASME
[33] Harris D.O., "Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics,"
Pressure Vessel and Piping Tech, Ed. by C.
Sundararajan, 1985, pp. 771-791.
[34] Harris D.O and Lim E Y, "Application of a
Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Model to the
Influence of In-service Inspection on Structural
Reliability", ASTM STP 798, 1983
[35] Bruckner A., Haberer R., Munz D., and Wellein R.,
"Reliability of the Steel Containment of a Nuclear
Power Plant Using Probabilistic Fracture
Mechanics," Paper presented at ASME Pressure
Vessel and Piping Conference, Portland, Oregon,
June, 1983.
[36] Lukjanov, V. F. and Korobstov, A. S., “Imitative
simulation of welded joint fracture under low-cycle
loading”, Int. Press. Vess. Piping, Vol. 47, No. 2,
1991, pp 193-206
[37] Baker M. J., Kountouris I. S. and Ohmart R. D.,
“Weld Defects in An Offshore Structure, A Detailed
Study”, 1988 Int. Conf. On Behavior of Offshore
Structures, Trodheim, June 1988
[38] Kountouris I. S. and Baker M. J., “Defect
assessment: analysis of the dimensions of defects
detected by magnetic particle inspection in an
offshore structure”, CESLIC Report OR6, Feb. 1988
[39] Kountouris I. S. and Baker M. J., “Reliability of non-
destructive examination of welded joints”, CESLIC
Report OR7, Feb. 1989
[40] Kountouris I. S. and Baker M. J., “Defect
assessment: analysis of the dimensions of defects
detected by ultrasonic inspection in an offshore
structure”, CESLIC Report OR8, May 1989
[41] Rodrigues, P E L B, Wong, W K and Rogerson, J. H
“Weld defect distribution in offshore structures and
their relevance to reliability studies, quality control
and inservice inspection””, Proc. OTC, Paper 3693,
Houston, Texas, May 1980
[42] Dufresne J et al, “Probabilistic application of fracture
mechanics”, Int. Conf. On Fracture, 5 April, 1981
[43] Burdekin, F. M. and Townend, P. H., “Reliability
Aspects of fracture on stress concentration regions
in offshore structures”, Proc. IOS’ 81 Glasgow,
Scotland, July 1981
[44] Rogerson, J. H and Wong, W.K., “Weld defect
distribution in offshore structures and their effects on
structural reliability”, Proc. OTC, Paper 4237,
Houston, Texas, 1982
[45] Thurlbeck, S. D., Muhammed, A. and Burdekin, F.
M., “A study of welding fabrication defects in two
12
offshore steel jacket structures”, Report for the HSE,
30 April 1996
[46] Kirkemo F, “Applications of probabilistic fracture
mechanics to offshore structures”, Appl Mech Rev
Vol. 41, No. 2 ,1988
[47] Madsen H.O, Sorensen J D, “Probability-based
Optimisation of Fatigue Design, Inspection and
Maintenance”, Integrity of Offshore Structure,
Glasgow, 1990
[48] Moan, T., “Reliability and risk analysis for design and
operations planning of offshore structures, Structural
safety and reliability”, Schueller, Shinozuka & Yao,
ed., ISBN 90 54 10 357 4, 1994
[49] Townend, P. H., “Statistical aspects of fracture of
weld defects in the node joints of tubular steel
offshore structure”, PhD thesis, UMIST, Oct. 1981
[50] Tang, W. H., “Probabilistic updating of flaw
information”, J. of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA,
Vol. 1. No. 6., pp 459-467, 1973
[51] Heasler, P. G., Taylor, T. T. and Doctor, S. R.,
“Statistically based reevaluation of the PISC-II round
robin test data”, NUREG/CR-4908, Washington D. C.
1993
[52] Berens, A. P. and Hovey, P. W. “Characterisation of
NDE reliability” Review of progress in quantitative
NDE, Vol. 1. 1982
[53] Temple, J. A., “The reliability of non-destructive
detection and sizing in periodic inspection of
pressurised components”, London, IMEng, 1982,
pp257-64
[54] Wolstenholme L, “A Comparison of Models for
Probability of Detection (POD) Curves”, Statistical
Report Paper No. 19, City University 1997
[55] Wall, M., F. A. Wedgwood, F. A., S. Burch, S.,
“Modelling of NDT Reliability (POD) and applying
corrections for human factors”, NDT.net, Vol.3
No.7, June 1998
[56] Wall, Thompson, Rummel, Berens and Forli,
“Proceedings European-American Workshop on
Determination of reliability and validation methods for
NDE”, Berlin, June 18-20 1997.
[57] Simonen, F. A. and Khaleel M. A., “Effects of Flaw
sizing error on the reliability of vessels and piping”, J.
of Pres. Vess. Tech. ASME, Vol. 120, 1998
[58] Jessop, T.J., et al., “Size Measurement and
Characterization of Weld Defects by Ultrasonic
Testing, Part 2”. Planar Defects in Ferritic Steels, No.
3527/ 10/80 in TWI Report Series, The Welding
Institute, Nov. 1980
Copyright©2002 by ASME
[59] Haines, N. F., Crutzen, S. and Vinche C. J., “A review
of the major PISC II round robin test results”, British
Journal of NDT, Nov. 1987
[60] Osage, D., Wirsching, P.H., and Mansour, A.E.,
“Application of Partial Safety Factors for Pressure
Containing Equipment,” 2000 ASME PVP
Conference, Seattle, WA, July, 2000
[61] Palmerg, B. “Crack growth data for the alluminium
alloys 7050-T3651 and 2024-T3”, FFA TN 1984-51,
The aeronautical research institute os Sweden,
Stockholm, 1984
[62] Yazdani N and Albrecht P., “Risk analysis of fatigue
failure of highway bridges", J. of Struc. Eng. ASCE,
Vol 113, No. 3 March 1987

13 Copyright©2002 by ASME