The issue of determining the probability of detection (POD) of structural health monitoring (SHM) is of great interest. However, upon careful consideration the specific details depend greatly on how the term SHM is defined. The USAF [1] defines “Structural health monitoring is a nondestructive inspection process or technique that uses in-situ sensing devices to detect damage.” While the ASNT Aerospace Handbook [2] includes the following definition “A process which typically involves technology-based monitoring of a structure in order to identify the operational loads and environment, deterioration caused by service, the rate of development of deterioration during service, and the effects of the deterioration and its rate of development on the future serviceability of the structure.” Other definitions may be used as well, further complicating the pursuit of SHM POD. This presentation will discuss the issues and propose a process for assessing the POD, as well as the probability of tracking (POT), for situations referred to as “hotspot monitoring.” The proposed approach offers a tangible means of assessing the “ideal” POD as well as to offer a means of validating modelling being proposed as an alternative to experimental POD assessment. Using the ideal SHM POD and POT actual in-situ sensing procedure implementation can be used with appropriate knock-down factors if the approach meets the needs of the full SHM process being used for management of a particular asset.



  • MIL-STD 1530D1c, Department of Defense Standard Practice, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program, 2016.
  • Aerospace NDT ASNT Industry Handbook, ASNT, Columbus, 2014.
  • Lane, R.J. and J. C. Duke, Jr., “Characterization of Bonding Agent Durability in Fatigue Monitoring Applications Utilized in NDT,” Proceedings of ASNT Spring Research Symposium, Orlando, 2018.


Usage Shares
Total Views
12 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
0 PDF Downloads
0 Facebook Shares
Total Usage