Probability of detection for bolt hole eddy current in extracted from service aircraft

wing structures
P. R. Underhill, C. Uemura, and T. W. Krause

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1949, 160001 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5031619

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031619
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1949/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Temperature sensitivity study of eddy current and digital gauge probes for nuclear fuel rod oxide measurement
AIP Conference Proceedings 1949, 160002 (2018); 10.1063/1.5031620
 Probability of Detection for Bolt Hole Eddy Current in
Extracted from Service Aircraft Wing Structures
P.R. Underhill, C. Uemura and T. W. Krause a)
Department of Physics and Space Science, Royal Military College of Canada
a)
Corresponding author: Thomas.Krause@rmc.ca

Abstract. Fatigue cracks are prone to develop around fasteners found in multi-layer aluminum structures on aging
aircraft. Bolt hole eddy current (BHEC) is used for detection of cracks from within bolt holes after fastener removal. In
support of qualification towards a target a90/95 (detect 90% of cracks of depth a, 95% of the time) of 0.76 mm (0.030”), a
preliminary probability of detection (POD) study was performed to identify those parameters whose variation may keep a
bolt hole inspection from attaining its goal. Parameters that were examined included variability in lift-off due to probe
type, out-of-round holes, holes with diameters too large to permit surface-contact of the probe and mechanical damage to
the holes, including burrs. The study examined the POD for BHEC of corner cracks in unfinished fastener holes extracted
from service material. 68 EDM notches were introduced into two specimens of a horizontal stabilizer from a CC-130
Hercules aircraft. The fastener holes were inspected in the unfinished state, simulating potential inspection conditions, by
7 certified inspectors using a manual BHEC setup with an impedance plane display and also with one inspection
conducted utilizing a BHEC automated C-Scan apparatus. While the standard detection limit of 1.27 mm (0.050”) was
achieved, given the a90/95 of 0.97 mm (0.039”), the target 0.76 mm (0.030”) was not achieved. The work highlighted a
number of areas where there was insufficient information to complete the qualification. Consequently, a number of
recommendations were made. These included; development of a specification for minimum probe requirements; criteria
for condition of the hole to be inspected, including out-of-roundness and presence of corrosion pits; statement of range of
hole sizes; inspection frequency and data display for analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Many aircraft operated by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) experience structural deterioration due to
fatigue cycling. During a typical flight, aircraft are subject to cyclic loading resulting in cyclic stresses that can lead
to physical damage to the aircraft structure. Continued cyclic loading is attributable to crack development and
damage accumulation that can lead to failure, at stresses well below the material’s ultimate strength. The damage
and failure caused by cyclic loading is known as fatigue.
To address the effects of fatigue cycling, the aerospace industry has adopted a damage tolerance approach in
aircraft maintenance and design. Damage tolerance analysis is used in the development of in-service inspection
programs that contribute to maintenance and life extension of the structure or component. Fatigue crack growth
prediction models have been developed to support these damage tolerance concepts. Fracture mechanics properties
such as fatigue crack growth data and fracture toughness are essential to conducting damage tolerance analysis of
primary aircraft structures [1]. Fracture mechanics techniques and fatigue crack growth prediction models are
essential tools in preventing the occurrence of failures, but the most critical component of the damage tolerance
approach is detecting the flaw or damage.
One of the most common types of fatigue crack growth is a crack growing radially from a bolt hole joining
multiple layers of aluminum. The standard way to inspect these sites is to use bolt hole eddy current in which a
probe mounted on a rotating scanner is passed through the hole and the eddy current signal is monitored for signs of
a crack or other defect. Probability of detection (POD) studies done on aluminum fastener holes show that cracks as
small as 0.43 mm (0.017”) can be reliably found using the right equipment and settings [2,3]. In the aircraft industry
the a90/95, the size of crack such that 90% of such cracks will be detected 95% of the time is usually taken to mean
“reliably detect”. The detection ability depends on a number of factors such as the probe type and the frequency
used to drive the probe. An important aspect of these POD studies is that they are almost all carried out on round
holes without any damage. There is some question as to how representative the holes used in this study are of real
holes in real structures. In a recent study, where fatigue cracks were grown in in-service material from which the
fasteners had been removed, the size of corner crack that could be reliably detected increased by a factor of 2 to
0.82 mm (0.032"), using 1600 kHz and automated C-Scan equipment [4]. The objective of this work was to conduct

44th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Volume 37

AIP Conf. Proc. 1949, 160001-1–160001-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031619
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1644-4/$30.00

160001-1
a second hit/miss probability of detection (POD) Bolt Hole Eddy Current (BHEC) study using multiple inspectors,
standard equipment and procedures to determine if similar results would be achieved again.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE

Two pieces from the horizontal stabilizer of a Hercules CC-130 aircraft were available as specimens. The
existing fasteners were removed from these pieces following a standard procedure [5]. Flanges sticking out of the
pieces were machined off to give the spark cutter access to the holes. The two pieces had 129 holes between them
ranging in size from 4.01-4.93 mm (0.158 - 0.194 inches) (Fig. 1: Specimens A (top) and B (bottom) with fasteners
removed.). Of these 63 were randomly selected to have an EDM notch cut, in accordance with MIL Handbook 1823
guidelines for a hit/miss POD [6]. Due to the limited number of holes this left 66 blank holes, less than
recommended by the MIL Handbook. EDM notches were cut radially into the 63 holes at random orientations
around the holes. Based on previous work [7] and the guidelines by Gandossi and Annis [8] the mean target notch
size was 0.030” (0.76 mm). In fact, the presence of burrs and damage around the holes resulted in a fairly large
spread of sizes. The notches were typically 0.004” to 0.005” (0.10-0.13 mm) wide. Figure 2 shows a typical notch.
To measure the notch sizes, Repliset was injected into each hole and the notch size was determined by
measuring the length along the bore of the impression of the notch using an optical microscope. The presence of
damage around the holes also complicated the definition of the crack length. As shown in Fig. 3, the damage, in this
case, meant that some of the length of the notch lay along a bevel. This left the question, should length be measured
from the ideal end of the hole (2 in Fig. 2) or from the actual end of the hole (1 in Fig. 2). For the purposes of this
study the latter was chosen; however, this means that the depths reported may not be conservative. Figure 4 shows
the distribution of measured notch lengths.

FIGURE 1. Specimens A (top) and B (bottom) with fasteners removed.

160001-2
 FIGURE 2. Microscopic image - fastener hole with machined notch (circled in red).

FIGURE 3. Replica of a notch in a damaged hole indicating the two ways the crack length could be measured.
35
Number of notches

30

25

20

15

10

0
<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 >35

Notch Length (Thou)

FIGURE 4. Notch length distribution.

160001-3
 Inspections were done from the opposite side of the hole to that which had the notches. This was done primarily
to hide the notches from the inspectors. The inspections reported here were conducted by 7 CGSB level 2 qualified
inspectors based at CFB Trenton, Ontario (i.e., people qualified to perform this inspection independently).
Inspectors were not asked to size the cracks, just indicate if a crack was present or not. Most of the inspections were
done in compliance with Gen-74E using Nortec 600 eddy current instruments, RA 2000 bolthole scanners and
contact probes. Gen-74E recommends a frequency of 400 kHz. Some duplicate inspections were done at 800 kHz.
Additionally scans were taken of all the holes using an automated system in the lab. This created a C-Scan record at
frequencies of 200, 400, 800 and 1600 kHz of each hole. The automated system replaced the Nortec 600 eddy
current instrument with an Olympus MS5800 instrument.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The hit rate for all the inspectors is shown in Fig. 5. There are actually very few fasteners that were picked up
by all the inspectors. The false call rate varied from 2 to 21% with an average value of 15%. The average hit rate
was only 73% and given the high false call rate, puts into question how much of that 73% was random. There was
no correlation between the false call rate and the hit rate for each inspector. It was possible to do a POD for the
combined data for all the inspectors (Fig. 6: Hit/Miss POD of results for all inspectors combined). The a90/95 value
for the combined data was 0.97 mm (0.039”). This is substantially worse than the target value of 0.76 mm (0.030”).
When the POD analysis was carried out for individual inspectors, in about half of the cases the software could not
determine an a90/95. This is in part due to some large misses for these inspectors, but is also due to the lack of very
large notches. Only one of the a90 values was larger than 0.97 mm (0.039”), which is compatible with the a90/95
computed for the group. A plot of the individual false call rates vs the individual a90 values is shown in Fig 7. As
might be expected, two inspectors with the largest a90 values also had the smallest false call rates. One would expect
there to be a trade-off between detection and false calls. Two of the inspectors appear to lie above the results for the
rest of the group suggesting a possible training issue. The automated C-Scan did not fare much better at a hit rate of
76% but with a lower false call rate of 3%.

1.2

1
Fraction Detected

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Size (Thou)
FIGURE 5. Hit Rate for the holes as a function of notch length.

160001-4
 FIGURE 6. Hit/Miss POD of results for all inspectors combined.

0.30

0.25

0.20
False Call Rate

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
a90 (thou)

FIGURE 7. Comparison of False Call Rate and a90 for individual inspectors.

In order to understand these results better, the holes with the worst statistics were examined visually. The three
largest notches with the most misses and the three most commonly false-called holes are shown in Fig. 8. They are
characterized by significant out-of-roundness; Fig. 8 (a) M1, (b) F1 and (f) F3, large burrs (e) M3 and (d) F2, and
edge damage (c) M2.

160001-5
 Worst Misses Worst False Calls

(a) M1: 037” long; 33% hit rate (b) F1: 75 % false calls

(c) M2: 034” long; 17% hit rate (d) F2: 58% false calls

(e) M3: 054” long; 33% hit rate (f) F3: 58% false calls

FIGURE 8: Worst misses on the left (a), (c) and (e) and false calls on the right (b), (d) and (f).

160001-6
 Similar results were found for other holes, which exhibited either a large miss rate or a large false call rate. An
examination of the eddy current signals showed that many of the holes had very large horizontal (lift-off) signals.
It is not clear how the damage seen around these holes was incurred. It does not seem likely that the burrs were
introduced by the fastener removal process. The damage seen around holes like M2, shown in Fig. 8(c), seems old,
but that isn’t proof that it was created at assembly. Similarly the out-of-roundness was probably created when the
holes were originally drilled. It is clear that any inspection needs to, at the very least, flag the existence of damage so
that holes, which cannot be accurately inspected, are not declared defect free.
This study itself was not as rigorous as desirable, which motivates further work in this area. In particular, the
distribution of notches to smaller sizes than the final a90/95 of 0.97 mm (0.039”), the number of blanks being half that
recommended by the MIL handbook [6] and the high false call rate of 15% (target is 5%) suggest that the a90/95
reported here may be less than what might be anticipated were these additional factors taken into account in a follow
up study.

CONCLUSION
It is clear from this study that earlier studies on in-service material were not as representative of actual possible
conditions as desirable, in that they do not appear to have encountered holes with as much damage as was seen in
this work. The current work indicates that while the standard detection limit of 1.27 mm (0.050”) is met, anything
less than this may be optimistic when inspecting in-service material. In order for qualification of the BHEC method
to proceed, it is essential that a method of determining that a hole is sufficiently similar to a round defect free-hole,
so that it can be inspected with confidence, be established.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Gaetan St-Amant at the Aeronautical Engineering Research Squadron (ATESS),
Trenton for technical assistance. This work was supported by the Aerospace Research Advisory Committee
(AERAC) through Directorate of Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support (DTAES in the Department of
National Defence, Canada.

REFERENCES

[1] “Nondestructive Evaluation System Reliability Assessment,” MIL-HDBK-1823A, (April 2009).

[2] GEN-74-E Rev. 3, “General Bolt Hole Technique For Metallic Structures,” Department of Defense, Canada.
[3] AFLCMC/EZ, “In-Service Inspection Flaw Assumptions for Metallic Structures,” EN-SB-08-012, Structures
Bulletin, Revision C, (May 2013).
[4] P.R. Underhill and T.W. Krause, “Eddy Current Probability of Detection for Mid-Bore and Corner Cracks in
Bolt-holes of Service Material,” Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, 27, 34-37, (2016).
[5] H. Lemire, P.R. Underhill, T.W. Krause, M. Bunn and D.J. Butcher, “Improving Probability of Detection in
Bolt-hole Eddy Current Inspection,” Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, 21, 141-156, (2010).
[6] L. Gandossi and C. Annis, “Probability Of Detection Curves: Statistical Best-Practices,” ENIQ Report, 41,
(2010).
[7] Charles Annis, P.E., “Statistical best-practices for building Probability of Detection (POD) models” R package
mh1823, version 4.3.2, (2016). http://StatisticalEngineering.com/mh1823/
[8] P.R. Underhill and T.W. Krause, “Quantitative fractography for improved probability of detection (POD)
analysis of bolt-hole eddy current,” Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, 22, 92-104, (2011).
[9] P.R. Underhill and T.W. Krause, “Enhancing Probability of Detection and Analysis of Bolt Hole Eddy Current,”
J. of Nondestructive Eval., 30, 237-245, (2011).
[10] P.R. Underhill and T.W. Krause, “Eddy current analysis of mid-bore and corner cracks in bolt-holes,” NDT&E
International, 44, 513-18, (2011).

160001-7