Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Enhancing Damage Tolerance Analysis with Method-Specific Probability of Detection Data Cover

Enhancing Damage Tolerance Analysis with Method-Specific Probability of Detection Data

Open Access
|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Sample POD curve for a high-frequency eddy current inspection. (Best available copy, Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center, 2000).

Figure 2.

Cycles vs crack length for a center cracked 2024 T3 Aluminum panel. Data generated by AFGROW Version 4.008.

Figure 3.

Crack Growth in a single load path structure and inspection terminology for FAA AC 91-82A (Federal Aviation Administration, 2015).

Figure 4.

Sample POD curve for a Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (Best available copy, Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center, 2000).

Baseline case parameters and resulting inspection cycle_

Baseline Example Summary
Initial Crack Length0.05 (2,3)Critical Crack Length1.32 (4)Total Life 55783 cycles (4)Threshold Inspection 45000 cycles (5)Allowable Inspection Interval 10783 cycles (6)Recurring Inspections 3600 cycles (7)

Comparison of baseline example inspection program to POD based a0 inspection program_

Comparsion of Baseline Example Inspection to POD based a0
Assumed a0Initial Crack LengthCritical Crack LengthTotal LifeThreshold InspectionAllowable Inspection IntervalRecurring Inspections
Baseline0.051.3255783 cycles45000 cycles10783 cycles3600 cycles
With POD0.21.3210783 cycles3600 cycles10783 cycles3600 cycles
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 3, 2026
Accepted on: May 4, 2026
Published on: Jun 4, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Scott A. Fohrman, Narendra Kumar Gadwal, Mark E. Barkey, Marcus Perry, Easir Arafat Papon, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT