Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- POD (4)
- Reliability (3)
- Accelerator mass spectrometry (1)
- Argon (1)
- C-scan (1)
- Ciaaw.org (1)
- Cosmogenic nuclides (1)
- Dual sensor (1)
- Exposure dating (1)
- Final disposal (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A first international 36Cl interlaboratory comparison has been initiated. Evaluation of the final results of the eight participating accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) laboratories on three synthetic AgCl samples with 36Cl/Cl ratios at the 10-11, 10-12, and 10-13 level shows no difference in the sense of simple statistical significance.
However, more detailed statistical analyses demonstrate certain interlaboratory bias and underestimation of uncertainties by some laboratories. Following subsequent remeasurement and reanalysis of the data from some AMS facilities, the round-robin data indicate that 36Cl/Cl data from two individual AMS laboratories can differ by up to
17%. Thus, the demand for further work on harmonising the 36Cl-system on a worldwide scale and enlarging the improvement of measurements is obvious.
Following the reviews of atomic-weight determinations and other cognate data in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) reports changes of standard atomic weights. The symbol Ar(E) was selected for standard atomic weight of an element to distinguish it from the atomic weight of an element E in a specific substance P, designated Ar(E, P). The CIAAW has changed the values of the standard atomic weights of five elements based on recent determinations of terrestrial isotopic abundances:
Ar (argon): from 39.948 ± 0.001 to [39.792, 39.963]
Hf (hafnium): from 178.49 ± 0.02 to 178.486 ± 0.006
Ir (iridium): from 192.217 ± 0.003 to 192.217 ± 0.002
Pb (lead): from 207.2 ± 0.1 to [206.14, 207.94]
Yb (ytterbium): from 173.054 ± 0.005 to 173.045 ± 0.010
The standard atomic weight of argon and lead have changed to an interval to reflect that the natural variation in isotopic composition exceeds the measurement uncertainty of Ar(Ar) and Ar(Pb) in a specific substance. The standard atomic weights and/or the uncertainties of fourteen elements have been changed based on the Atomic Mass Evaluations 2016 and 2020 accomplished under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). Ar of Ho, Tb, Tm and Y were changed in 2017 and again updated in 2021:
Al (aluminium), 2017: from 26.981 5385 ± 0.000 0007 to 26.981 5384 ± 0.000 0003
Au (gold), 2017: from 196.966 569 ± 0.000 005 to 196.966 570 ± 0.000 004
Co (cobalt), 2017: from 58.933 194 ± 0.000 004 to 58.933 194 ± 0.000 003
F (fluorine), 2021: from 18.998 403 163 ± 0.000 000 006 to 18.998 403 162 ± 0.000 000 005
(Ho (holmium), 2017: from 164.930 33 ± 0.000 02 to 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007)
Ho (holmium), 2021: from 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007 to 164.930 329 ± 0.000 005
Mn (manganese), 2017: from 54.938 044 ± 0.000 003 to 54.938 043 ± 0.000 002
Nb (niobium), 2017: from 92.906 37 ± 0.000 02 to 92.906 37 ± 0.000 01
Pa (protactinium), 2017: from 231.035 88 ± 0.000 02 to 231.035 88 ± 0.000 01
Pr (praseodymium), 2017: from 140.907 66 ± 0.000 02 to 140.907 66 ± 0.000 01
Rh (rhodium), 2017: from 102.905 50 ± 0.000 02 to 102.905 49 ± 0.000 02
Sc (scandium), 2021: from 44.955 908 ± 0.000 005 to 44.955 907 ± 0.000 004
(Tb (terbium), 2017: from 158.925 35 ± 0.000 02 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008)
Tb (terbium), 2021: from 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 007
(Tm (thulium), 2017: from 168.934 22 ± 0.000 02 to 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006)
Tm (thulium), 2021: from 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006 to 168.934 219 ± 0.000 005
(Y (yttrium), 2017: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 02 to 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01)
Y (yttrium), 2021: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01 to 88.905 838 ± 0.000 002
The paper will give an overview of new methodology for evaluating the
reliability of NDE systems accurately, reliably and efficiently in accordance with the
specific requirements of industrial application. After a review of the substantive
issues from the previous workshops, the go forward guidance from these
interactions is considered.
At the beginning of the reliability analysis, the actual safety demands have to
be defined in order to fit the investigation to the level of risk when the component
would fail. Next, all the essential influencing parameters need to be documented and
transferred to an appropriate design of experiments (DOE) to determine the
reliability in terms of a qualitative assessment for lower risk or in terms of a
quantitative probability of detection (POD) or ROC (Receiver Operating
Characteristics) curves for higher safety demands. A new paradigm is offered to
consider the POD or reliability of the system as a function of the configuration of
input variables and use it for optimisation rather than for a final judgement. An
advantage for the end user is also to sample all single PODs to an integral 'Volume
POD' of a part.
Among the influencing parameters, the human factor is the most important one.
A systematic psychological approach shall help to find out where the bottlenecks are
but most importantly to provide best possible working conditions for the human
inspectors.
Es werden die Fortschritte bei der Bewertung der Zuverlässigkeit von ZfP-Systemen in den vergangenen 10 Jahren vorgestellt. Der modulare Ansatz bzw. die systematische Auflistung aller wesentlichen Einflussfaktoren stehen am Anfang jeder Bewertung, die jeweils spezifisch für einen industriellen bzw. Feldeinsatz angelegt wird. Weiterhin legt die zu Grunde liegende Sicherheitsanforderung fest, ob ein exaktes quantitatives statistisches Ergebnis z. B. für die Fehlergröße, die mit hoher Sicherheit detektiert wird angestrebt wird oder ob man sich mit einer qualitativen Abschätzung zufrieden geben kann. Moderne Werkzeuge wie das 'Design of Experiments' (Statistische Versuchsplanung), die Volumen-POD für ein Bauteil als ganzes oder auch die systematische psychologische Betrachtung des menschlichen Faktors unterstützen die Treffsicherheit der Untersuchung für den gewünschten Einsatzfall. Die Ergebnisse der ZfP-Prüfungen können immer nur so gut sein, wie der Mensch mit den Bedingungen zurechtkommt. Weiterhin kann die POD im Zusammenhang mit den Prozessparametern als helfendes Optimierungswerkzeug eingesetzt werden und nicht als endgültige Be(Ver)urteilung. Es werden Beispiele aus Bereichen der Energieerzeugung und Endlagerung präsentiert.
This report describes the methodology of the reliability investigation performed on the ultrasonic
phased array NDT system, developed by SKB in collaboration with Posiva, for inspection of the
canisters for permanent storage of nuclear spent fuel.
The canister is composed of a cast iron insert surrounded by a copper shell. The shell is composed
of the tube and the lid/base which are welded to the tube after the fuel has been place, in the
tube. The manufacturing process of the canister parts and the welding process are described.
Possible defects, which might arise in the canister components during the manufacturing
or in the weld during the welding, are indentified.
The number of real defects in manufactured components have been limited. Therefore the reliability
of the NDT system has been determined using a number of test objects with artifical defects.
The reliability analysis is based on the signal response analysis. The conventional signal response
analysis is adopted and further developed before applied on the modern ultrasonic phased-array
NDT system. The concept of multi-parameter a, where the response of the NDT system is dependent
on more than just one parameter, is introduced. The weakness of use of the peak signal response
in the analysis is demonstrated and integration of the amplitudes in the C-scan is proposed as an
alternative. The calculation of the volume POD, when the part is inspected with more configurations,
is also presented. The reliability analysis is supported by the ultrasonic simulation based on the
point source synthesis method.