Non-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION IW COMMISSION V NoN-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE OF WeLDED PRopucTSs | FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION w.2363-13 HE Commission vIW Commission V, chaired by Dr. ric SJerve (\isNDT, Canada) ‘Author Dr. Pierre Calman (CEA, France) Recommendations for the use and validation OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION O-—..—-INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WELDING A world of joining experience The International Institute of Welding (IW) was founded in 1948 by the welding insttutes/societies of 13 countries \who considered itcrucial to make more rapid scientific and technical progress possible on a global level. Their vision ‘was forthe IW to be the international vehicle by which innovation and best joining practices could be promoted, while providing an international platform for the exchange and dissemination of evolving welding technologies and applications. From its humble beginnings, the INV is today a universal reference, recognized as the largest worldwide network for \welding and allied joining technologies, boasting a current membership of 56 counties from the five continents ‘The IIW/s Mission is to operate as the global body forthe sclence and application of joining technology, providing a forum for networking and knowledge exchange among scientists researchers and industry. Through the work of ts 26 Technical Commissions and Working Units, the organization's technical focus encompasses the joining, cutting and surface treatment of metallic and non-metallic materials by such processes as welding, brazing, soldering, thetmal cutting, thermal spraying, adhesive bonding and microjoining. IW work also embraces allied fields including quality assurance, non-destructive testing, standardization, inspection, health and safety, education, training, qualification, design and fabrication, Disclaimer The information and data presented In the present document are Intended for informational purposes only. Reasonable care is exercised in the compilation and publication of IIW documents to ensure the authentic ty of the contents. However, no representation is made as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of this infor- ‘mation and an independent substantiating investigation of the information should be undertaken by the user. The information contained in the present document shall not be construed as a grant of any right of man- ufactute, sale, use or reproduction in connection with any method, process, apparatus, product, composi- tion or system which is covered by patent, copyright or trademark. Also, it shall not be construed as a de- fence against any liability for such infringement. Whether the use of any information in the present docurnent ‘would result in an infringement of any patent, copyright or trademark is a determination to be made by the user.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIM ‘110)\ RECOMMENDATIONS for the use and validation of non-destructive testing simulation METABLE OF CONTENT 05, 05, 068 08 o o 09 o ° ° 10 10 n u n 2 2 2 2 B Ea EL (ose asa Re 21 Scope and defritions 2.2 Typical ways of using simulation as element of ‘echnical justification 23 Main advantages of simulation 24 iferent types of simulation tools 25 Considerations when using simulation 26 Recommendations when using simulation PENCE 3.1 Scope and definitions 3.2 Considerations on accuracy and uncertainties in the context of validation 3.21 Possible origins of cscrepancy between experiment and simulation 3.22 Scope ofthe validation 3.23, xperimental uncertainty 3.2.4 Uncertainty inked to the determination of the inputs ofthe simulation 43.2.5 Mumercaluncentaines 426 Softwaretesting 13.3 Considerations on “numerical valldations 3.4 Recommendations fr the conduct of ‘experimental validation 134.1 Scope ofthe validation 34.2 Design of experimental set-ups 343 Experiments 34.4 Computations 134.5 Comparisons between experiment and ‘computation 0 SE YAterusNPn 144. ncusion experimental dts ina valition ditabese 14 42 Inclusion of comparison resuits in a database lidation(MMII. CONN/ENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION 1. INTRODUCTION ‘Numerical simulation also called “theoretical modelling” or“computer modelling’) is @ powerful tool being used Increasingly in the NDT field. The reliability of any conclusions drawn from simulation depends directly on the valid- ity ofthe codes and models used. The main objective ofthis document isto give advice and recommendations on procedures forthe validation of codes and models. The aim sto promote a uniform approach for the validation of NDT simulation, one aspect being the creation ofa validation database. The document is organized as follows. inthe first part we give a brief overview of the different approaches, advantages {and limitations of the application of NDT numerical simulation. Then we lst some considerations and recommenda- tions for the use of simulation. Inthe second part ofthe document we discuss the different aspects of validation and {give recommendations on both validation procedures and reporting of validation data. The key point here that the ‘model user should be able to cite validation data demonstrating the relevance and reliability of the code being used. About the author: Pierre Calmon received in 1990 the PhD in Physics at the University of Paris Sud, France and joined the NDE department of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA). Since then his research activity has been mainly focused on modeting and simulation Initially involved inthe development of NDT simulation software he is now responsible of coordinating the research in NDT at CEA. He isthe current Chait of IW Commission V-FRellablity of NOT” This document has been prepared in the framework ofthe working unit CV F of the IM. Special thanks are addressed {to Dr Bob Chapman from EDF Energy who checked and improved this document.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NONDESTAUCTIVETESTING SM 10h 2. CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE USE OF NDT SIMULATION 2.1 Scope and definitions [NDT simulation is used nowadays ina wide range of different applications: | Performance demonstration of existing method | Reliability assessment of method through Probability of Detection (POD) studies 1 Study of the inspectabilty of components through ‘virtual’ testing | Help in analysis, better understanding of underiying phenomena, data inversion In general, the application of simulation is aimed at technically justifying the use of one technique, one probe, one data processing algorithm, et... in relation tothe final objective being pursued by the practitioner. In such cases the information provided by simulation isincluded as an element ofthe technical justification. By simulation we mean the use ofa software program providing quantitative predictions on some aspect of the Inspection process. The software results from the implementation of a numerical algorithm solving a mathematical 5 formulation of the physical phenomena involved inthe simulation, We wil call“mode!” the mathematical formulation plus the numerical algorithm. 2.2 Typical ways of using simulation as element of technical justification In general, NOT techniques consist of measuring the response of the interrogated component or part to an excitation, The excitation sa transmission of energy which interacts with the component and induces the response. ‘One common use of simulation consists of computing the response of the inspected component (echoes for ultrason- Jes, variation of impedance for eddy current, etc) after having postulated the presence of one or several flaws whose characteristics are inputs to the simulation. The computation ofthe responses of flaws can be used to: | Predict the signal amplitudes from postulated defects relative tothe response ofa calibration defect (side drilled hole, flat bottomed hole, et...) 1 Estimate the detection performance of a method as a function ofthe characteristics of the defect: size and shape, location, material orientation, roughness. .For instance simulation can give the minimum detectable size of de- fect above a given threshold. 11 Quantify the influence of various (controlled and uncontrolled) parameters :e.9, the influence of the geornetry of the component, the effects of cladding, the effects of metallurgical microstructure etc 11 Determine a“worst case” among the possible ranges of variation ofa set of identified parameters. | Interpolate between cases covered by experimental data 11 Compute POD (probability of detection) curves asa function ofthe flaw size given a set of varying parameters and their ranges of variation,(NNN F-COM/IENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION ‘A second common practice consists of modeling only the excitation aspect of the inspection (the propagating ultra- sonic wave or the induced electromagnetic eld in the cases of ultrasonics and eddy curtents respectively) In this case ‘simulation gives insight into the capability ofthe probe to efficiently interrogate the region of interest in the compo- ‘nent, Such computation can help inthe design or set-up of the probes. In particular beam computations are currently used for designing ultrasonic aray techniques, ‘The simulation ofthe excitation aspect can be used to: | Evaluate the sensitivity ofa given probe and ts set-up. | Better understand the effects of interactions on the defect’ responses (for example multiple paths and mode conversions in ultrasonics) | Better understand the influence of parameters on detection performance (for example the effects of material anisotropy on ultrasonic beams) 2.3 Main advantages of simulation peed and cost. 1 Versatility of the investigated situations the possibilty of considerably incressing the amountof availabe data and increasing the range of essential parameters investigated (including cros-variations of parameters) by increas- ing the numberof numerical experiments | Explanation of resuits:the possibilty of physically understanding the dota provided by simulation ether through specific processing functionalities (snapshots of propagating waves for example) or by conducting specific‘ac- demic caulations. 2.4 Different types of simulation tools ‘A simulation code s defined by the following aspects 1 Its function (calculation of ultrasonic wave fields, echoes from postulated defects...) and its regime of applica tion: the NDT technique and the situations addressed by the code and the principal outputs of the code, | The theoretical model on which the calculations are based. In general one simulation can call up several in- ter-connected models dedicated to the different phenomena involved in the inspection (with the output of one ‘model becoming the input tothe next one). n such cases the global model is often described as an “integrated model’, | The software implementation. ‘Awide range of different types of codes may be encountered: Sn 1 Some codes aim at fully simulating the inspection: the input of the code corresponds to the main essential pa- rameters ofthe inspection and the main output corresponds tothe result ofthe inspection. 1 Some codes are dedicated to one partial aspect ofthe inspaction: eg the computation ofthe excitation fel in the component; the calculation of reflection coefficients; the homogenization of aheterogeneous or composite structure and the determination of corresponding effective parameters attenuation, permittivity, tc...) I “Analytical models” which calculate analytical expressions giving the solution of the physical problem under consideration. In general analytical solutions are available only for canonical and the simplest situations, so these models generally only address a partial aspect ofthe inspection.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON DESTAUCTIVETESTING SIM‘) | “semi-analytical” models which aim at (numerically) calculating expressions derived from the exact formulation of the problem. These derived expressions (in general integral formulations) use known analytical partial solutions (such as Green's functions) and are often established using some specific approximations. 1 “Full numerical methods": Numerical solution of an equation corresponding to a mathematical formulation ofthe physical problem under consideration and based on spatially or temporally sampling the elements of the inspec- tion (probe, medium of propagation, defect, etc... Finite element methods and finite difference methods are the ‘most common methods in this class, | "Hybrid models" which combine the previous approaches in some way. In general, such methods are proposed with the aim of reducing the sizeof the sampled region, 11 Stochastic models, as opposed to deterministic models, are based on algorithms using random processes. nate implementation one can dtinguish between} | NOT oriented home-made" codes developed by the end-user institution, 11 Commercial packages dedicated to NOT. | Generalist (commercial or home-made) packages, such as a finite element package which may be applied to solve an NDT issue, 2.5 Considerations when using simulation For each of the different situations listed above, there are corresponding advantages and disadvantages which need to be evaluated depending on the intended user application. In general the considerations mainly concem: | The physical basis of the model, its domain of applicability and the expected reliability of its predictions. 7 Does the model account for the influence of the essential parameters of the Inspection? Ista 20 or a 30 model? Has it already been used or validated in the context of similar applications? etc | The computer resources required to run the code and the numerical performance in terms of computation time. | The personnel competence required to run the code. Is specific skill in numerical techniques required to set Uupa simulation and interpret the output? 2.6 Recommendations when using simulation ‘The crucial issue when using simulation is to evaluate the level of reliability ofthe predictions furnished by the code. Great care must be given to the relevance of the computations by considering the physical basis of the model and the domain of applicability of the code. This s especially true since simulation software codes are powerful to's offering multiple possibilities and are based on sophisticated mathematical and numerical theories. To allow a reasonable evaluation of the credence that can be given to simulated results, itis recommended that the following information is included when reporting these results: |The name of the code, the organization which developed it, and the version number which has been used. The reliability of computation depends not only on the validity of the underlying theoretical model but also on the correctness of the software implementation, The identification ofthe version number is absolutely essential to clearly establish this correctness (lack of critical bugs). I The inputs to the code: => Alist ofthe principal inputs to the code and their correspondence to the identified essential parameters of the inspection. The establishment of this correspondence may help with checking what aspects are taken into account by the code. (It should be noted, however, that just because an input is entered by the user it does not, follow that this input is correctly taken into account by the code). => The values assumed for these parameters in the inputs corresponding to the carried out simulations,(NNN F-COM/IENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION 2. Costetine srsrcanmandtoson te sect seston | The different elements justifying the relevance of the code: => Consideration of the physical bass of the model and its domain of validity: engineering understanding and theoretical considerations. = Available and controlled data related tothe validation ofthe model or the code in similar situations: data from the literature, international benchmarks, experimental databases etc.. => Experiments caried out specifically with the aim of evaluating the reliability and accuracy ofthe code in the case under study,[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMU ‘110) 3. CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE VALIDATION OF CODES 3.1 Scope and definitions ‘As emphasized above, the availability of validation data isa key point when using NDT simulation, By the validation of one code or one model we mean the process of evaluating the rellabilty/accuracy ofits pre= dictions by comparing these predictions to reference results. In general these are obtained by experiment (exper- imental validation), but they may also be obtained using other codes or models (model benchmarking, which will bbe called “numerical"validation here). The notion of rliability/accuracy and consequently the means of evaluating It will be clarified in the next sections 3.2 Considerations on accuracy and uncertainties in the context of validation 3.2.1 Possible origins of discrepancy between experiment and simulation Firstly we note that it is somewhat simplistic to regard experiments as providing “true” values which have to be reproduced as closely as possible by simulation. Uncertainty in the essential parameters and the accuracy of the ‘experiment itself also have to be considered. Therefore discrepancies between experimental and simulated results, ‘cannot automatically be taken as a direct measure of the accuracy of the simulation, ‘The discrepancy between one experimental result and the corresponding simulated result may be due to: Experimental uncertanity Inaccuracy ofthe representation ofthe real trial bythe inputs of the simulation [Nurmerical uncertainties (numerical noise and the influence of computational parameters) Inaccuracy of the model (approximations) ‘Bugsin itsimplementation The final goal ofthe validation is to quantitatively determine the component of the discrepancy actually due to the simulation itself. Such evaluation constitutes a measure ofthe “ellablity"of the simulation. As discussed in §3.4 the re- ‘ime of validity ofthe process under validation may vary depending on the objective pursued by the NDT practitioner. 3.2.2 Scope of the validation \We can distinguish between somewhat different situations: | When the objective is to test the capability ofthe code to reproduce experiment for one given application specified in one material (identification of the equipment and inspected component), the process under vali- dation includes the simulation plus the representation of the reality in terms of qualifying characteristics and essential parameters.(NNN FCOM/NAENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION ‘The sources of error in the above list which must be considered as possibly contributing to the inaccuracy of the ‘simulation’ are items 2to 5, This situation corresponds to the least informative one. The conclusions ofthe validation are essentially limited to the application under consideration. | When the objective is to evaluate the reliability ofthe predictions provided by one given code in a range of situations of interest defined by qualifying characteristics (on probes, components, flaws...) the process under validation is reduced to the simulation itself ‘The sources of erro in the above list which must be considered as possibly contributing to the inaccuracy of the “simulation” are items 3t05, In this case the conclusions of the validation can be transposed to similar applications of the same code. When the objective is to evaluate the validity ofthe theoretical model itself (the mathematical formulation and eventually its numerical implementation) or one limited aspect of the model (one specific approximation), the process under validation is limited to the model The sources of error in the above list which must be considered as possibly contributing to the inaccuracy of the “simulation” are reduced to items 3 and 4. This situation is the most academic and the most general. The information provided is of interest not only for one specific code but can be transposed and help with justifying the use of other simulation codes based on a similar model. 3.2.3 Experimental uncertainity ‘The accuracy of the experiment itself is measured by the reproducibility of experimental results for one fixed set-up {one fixed equipment, one fixed specimen under test and one fixed procedure) The possible factors limiting the accuracy ofthe experiment are: sources of nolse, fluctuations in parameters pertaining to the measurement, the effects of influential parameters or phenomena not listed in the definition of the set-up, Recommendations related to this isue are given § 34, items S and 6, 3.2.4 Uncertainty linked to the determination of the inputs of the simulation ‘The real trial is represented by an amount of information transformed into inputs for the simulation code. The inputs of the simulation generally consist of qualifying characteristics (type of probe, isotropy of the material, etc...)and the values of essential parameters (frequency of the excitation, wave speed in the component, CAD files, etc.) In general identifying elements, such asthe type or serial numberof a piece of equipment, are not part of the information transferred to the simulation, This representation of the real experiment bya set of inputs: [lis based on hypotheses about the specimen under test (geometrical assertions, material considerations et...) or about the equipment behaviour (piston source behaviour of ultrasonic probes for example), I requires the determination ofthe input values ofthe essential parameter. Both hypotheses which may be approximations and uncertainties or inaccuraciesin the determination of essential parameters, may have a considerable influence on the relevance of the simulated results. Recommendations related to ths isue are given § 34, tems 4 and 7.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMU ‘110) 3.2.5 Numerical uncertainities Ina somewhat similar way as for experiments, one must consider the possibility of uncertainty in the simulation corresponding to a possible non-reproducibility ofthe simulated result for fixed input and output definitions. Such ‘uncertainty is referred to as numerical noise and depends on the characteristics ofthe model (deterministic or sto- chastic, analytical or numerical etc...) In general it can be neglected, but when ths is not the case its recommend- ed (item 13 of $3.4) that confidence limits associated with the computed values are evaluated. In addition it should be noted that, in general, running the cade also requires the specification of computational pa- rameters’ specific tothe implemented algorithm. These computational parameters for instance meshing parame- ts) influence the output ofthe simulation. One might define and measure one inaccuracy of the simulation linked. to this issue in reference to the output corresponding to the*ideal” set of such parameters, However, such a concept not a very useful one considering our objectives. Recommendations related to this issue are given § 3.4 item 12. 3.2.6 Software testing ‘When itis the simulation code which is under validation, the distinction between bugs and other numerical sources of errors isnot required. Nevertheless indications ofthe existence of bugs (‘abnormal behaviour of the code) must bbe considered and reported (recommendation 15 of §3.44). Itis only when the validation addresses the mode! itself or one aspect of the model that itis crucial to be sure that ‘observed discrepancies between computation and results are not due to bugs. Software tests are outside the scope ofthis document so we will not give recommendations on this aspect. 3.3 Considerations on accuracy and uncertainties in the context of validation ‘One partial way to evaluate the reliability of a model or a code (Code) may be to compare its predictions with the results provided by an independent code (Code2) considered in that test as a reference. Itshould be noted that: | Agreement (within a relevant interval of accuracy) between the results given by the two codes for the same situation isa convincing indication of: => The correctness of the software implementation ofthe two codes. => The validity of the model (mathematical formulation and its resolution by numerical algorithm), but only if the two models considered are different. I+ Onthe contrary if different results are obtained with the two codes itis more difficult to draw conclusions, and some precautions must be taken: => The discrepancy between the two results can be attributed to the approximations of the model orto a bug in implementation in Code 1 only if the validity of Code 2 has been undoubtedly established for the inputted configuration. => The discrepancy may also be due to differences between the situations considered by the codes. A careful analysis of the inputs of the two codes is necessary before drawing conclusions. Due to possibly diferent defini- tions of the parameters inputted to the codes and different adopted conventions this analysis may be dificult This is especially the case when the results are obtained from the Iiterature.(NNN FCOM/NAENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION 3.4 Recommendations for the conduct of experimental validation 3.4.1 Scope of the validation The first step is to define with precision the scope of the validation, Such a definition will determine how to manage the different aspects of the validation (cf. previous discussion of § 3.22). 3.4.2 Design of experimental set-ups ‘The design of experiments, that isthe choice or specifications for mock-ups; flaws, probes, experimental procedures, parameter set-ups, etc..., depends on the regime of validity and objective ofthe validation. Related to this step it is recommended: {I To consider the representativeness of the tests according to the situations of interest and to the coverage of the range of varying parameters (such as flaw size, angle beams, etc...) under investigation. To simplify the test as far as possible. in order to isolate the phenomena under consideration and to mini- mize the interference with other factors which might complicate the interpretation of results. For exampleifthe validation concems only the influence of the defect size or orientation on its response, canonical geometries and isotropic material ae preferred to more complex mock-ups. To prefer probes and mock-ups whose characteristics are controlled and well-known. To consider the validity of any hypotheses assumed about the specimen (geometrical and material properties Such asisottopy, homogeneity.) 3.4.3 Experiments \When carrying out experiments and in accordance with the discussion of § 3.2 its recommended: 1D To lis the influential parameters of the experiment, to check that these parameters ate well-controlled and to determine their values. To check the product ofthe experiment and to evaluate confidence interval of the reported data To perform the necessary measurements in order to determine or confirm the hypotheses made and the values of the influential parameters which are not directly controlled bythe experimentalist and in particular: = The materials characteristics of the mockup, such as ultrasonic velocities, sizes and postions of artificial defects, tc... = The topology ofthe mock-up (profilometry) = The characteristics of probes: these are not always available especially when commercial probes are used. Experiments should be performed on the probes to check that the characteristics of the radiated beam (orientation, width, et...) correspond to the nominal values Furnished by the manufacturer {D To evaluate the accuracy ofthese measurements and report the corresponding confidence intervals.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMU ‘110) 3.4.4 Computations 4s already indicated great care should be given to the input/output definition ofthe code. In particular itis recom- mended {2 To check the correspondence between the data (pertaining to the description of the test to be simulated) required as input to the code and the avalable data experimentally controlled. When there isnot a complete cortespondence, to identify and report the missing information and the operations performed to complement the data (extrapolation, approximations, signal processing, et...) [ID To check the correspondence between the output ofthe code and the data provided by the experiment. When there Is not an exact identity, to report the fact. When post-processing operations are performed, either on the computed or on the experimental data, to report these operations. IIB To perform computations in order to evaluate the inaccuracy caused by uncertainties in the essential parameters. For example, simulation should be carried out for the maximum and minimum values ofthe uncertain parameters in at least one representative case Bi Tolist the computational parameters (inputs which do not pertain to the description ofthe experiment) and to check the correctness of the specified values. IE. when necessary, to perform tests on the influence of these computational parameters, on at least one representative computation tis common that one or several parameters tive the accuracy ofthe computation In stich cases the recommended practceifpossible is: => To increase successively the level of precision of the computation until convergence ofthe output is reached within a pre-defined interval = If this convergence is reached using acceptable computer resources and computation time, then the corresponding value ofthe computation parameter is adopted for the complete set of computations. = If this is not the case the corresponding uncertainty inthe output s reported as a measure ofthe accuracy of the simulation. 8 = Inall cases the values ofthe computational parameters shouldbe reported ‘When necessary, to evaluate the reproducibility of the computation and report the amplitude ofthe ‘numerical nolse: [To report “abnormal” behaviour of the code in regards to engineering understanding, This may indicate the Presence of bugs or inadequate usage ofthe code. 3.4.5 Comparisons between experiment and computation The comparison aims at isolating the part of the discrepancy effectively due to the process under validation (the “simulation’).As already discussed in § 3.22, the regime of validity ofthe ‘simulation’ depends on the exact objec- tive of the NDT practitioner and we can distinguish different situations: [IB When the process under validation includes the simulation plus the representation of reality interms of qualifying characteristics and essential parameters (that is when the objective sto test the capablity ofthe code to reproduce experimental results for one given application > The discrepancy between the simulated data and the experimental data should be compared to the confidence terval ofthe experimental data. [J When the process under validation is reduced tothe simulation stricto sensu (when the objective isto evaluate the reliability ofthe predictions provided by one given code ina range of situations of interest defined by qualifying characteristics (on probes, parts, flaw...) and values of essential parameter): The discrepancy between the simulated data and the experimental data should be compared to the confidence interval resulting from uncertainty inthe experimental data plus the uncertainties in the representation of realty in terms of inputs. I hen the objective isto evaluate the validity of the model itself the mathematical formulation and its numerical resolution) or one limited aspect ofthe model (one specific approximation! © The discrepancy between the simulated data and the experimental data should be compared to the confidence interval resulting from uncertainty in the experimental data, plus the uncertainties inthe representation of reality in terms of inputs plus the numerical uncertainties (noise and the influence of computational parameter}.(NNN F-COM/ENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-OESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCLUSION IN VALIDATION DATABASE 4.1 Inclusion of experimental data in a validation database In this section we consider the inclusion of experimental data in the database. Since the aim here is to make possible the future use by the NOT community of this data for validating various codes or models, the information provided ‘must be the most comprehensive possible within any limits imposed by confidentiality considerations. Ideally the information includes: | The identification (type) of the acquisition equipment constituted by the excitation and reception devices and cluding transducers, probes, detectors [The set-up of the acquisition parameters 1 A report of measurements carried out in order to determine probe characteristics (orientation and focal width of ultrasonic beams, transmitted signals, etc...) 1A description ofthe specimen under test: constitutive materials {and possibly microstructure), geometry, included laws (location, size, profiles...) 1 Areportof the measurements carried out to characterize the specimen (measurements of wave velocity atten- uation, size of defects, et...) 1A definition ofthe experimental procedure: probe positioning and scanning, stored signals reported parame- ters, any signal processing performed, operations of calibration (characteristics of the reference blocks) 1 The postprocessing of the results I The accuracy of the experimental data (reproductbilty ofthe result) 4.2 Inclusion of comparison results in a validation database The inclusion of validation data (reporting ofa comparison between one code or one model and experimental data) ‘may be helpful fits accompanied by a comprehensive description of the experiment and simulation carried out. ‘The information includes: | The exact objective ofthe validation: evaluation of the capability of one code on a given situation, validation of ‘one code in a range of situations, of one model or one approximation, 1 The experimental data and the associated information following the prescription of §4.1 | The identification ofthe software: name of the code, organization which developed it, and version number which has been used | A general description of the model: expected regime of validity (what aspects ofthe inspection are modelled), physical principle, hypotheses and approximations. 1 Alist of the main inputs of the code and thelr correspondence to the identified essential parameters of the inspection, | Alist of computations made and the corresponding model inputs: values of the parameters, description of CAD files et... f the code is publicly available and ifit is technically possible it may be valuable to include input files in the database. This can allow different users to repeat the computations.[RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON DESTAUCTIVETESTING SMI) “4 Pecormenctns recs hvala dbase | Areport of tests concerning i) measurement ofthe inaccuracy caused by uncertainties in the essential parame- ters tecommendation 11 of § 3.4.) i) the influence of the computational parameters (recommendation 13 of § 3.44) il) measurement of numerical noise (recommendation 13 of $3.44)Linking people, joining nations Membership is open to no-profit organizations or research institutes, with the possibilty of multiple members per country. International institute of Welding Office Address Paris Nord 2 90, rue des Vanesses - 93420 Villepinte - France Postal Address BP 51362 - Roissy Charles de Gaulle Cedex - France Fax : +33 1 4990 3680 - E-mail : [email protected] Website : www itwelding.org INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WELDIN ‘A.world of joining experience Recommendations forthe use and validation of non-destructive testing simulation (Doe. IM-2363-13) Ison o7e2968197020 (Copyright 6 IW’ 2013: al ight reserved. This document must rol be reproduced in prior electronically (CR Rem or ary ype of epost) without writon parison fom the IW.‘pst 2083 iiw-2363-13, al NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING eens RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION Numeral sulin (abo caked heortial modaing oreomputr medkling isa power toa beg sed nressngy the NDT fel The mlabity of ary conan dawn fom smuston cepa ect on th aly he «exes de sed Te rn objective his custo ge adic end rcommetons on procadresfor the vation of codes and mode Theaimisto porte aunformanpeoach {ore valetion of NDT san ane asst bang he cen ofa aldatendaabase ‘The document omeriaed as flows. nthe ft part we ge 2 be verew othe leet preaches, advantages and Imitation of the 2appkton of NOT nur sudston Than we et some coer and econo fer be ue of sto, the son pt of the coaiment ve diss the cnt apc of vakision and give recommendiions on both voldation proashres and reoring of vabton data. The key pot here that the model use shuld be eto ct ation eta amentrting the eevee ad reaity the code bse Smuctng Reamrmenditons Nendesnche ‘esting Mathematil odes, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE AND VALIDATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING SIMULATION > & = 5 é