NDT.net - January 2002, Vol. 7 No.

01

Ermolov Sizing Equations Revisited

E. Ginzel
Materials Research Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
R. Ginzel and W. Kanters
Eclipse Scientific Products in Williamsford, Ontario , Canada
Corresponding Author Contact:
Email: eginzel@mri.on.ca, Web: http://www.mri.on.ca

Preface
This paper has been submitted to R. Diederichs for the NDT online journal,
www.NDT.net together with a downloadable software package Ermolov SolutionsTM
that solves most of the equations presented by Dr. I. N. Ermolov in his 1972 paper. Use
of the software and worked examples are provided in the software section identified
under the tab "Notes".

The authors hope to provide future works to develop further comparisons between actual
scan results and results calculated by these equations.

Introduction
Sizing of flaws detected by traditional NDT methods has been proven problematic.
Sizing by ultrasonic methods has been no exception; however, attempts are still being
made to improve the tolerances associated with the techniques commonly used to size
flaws. Transit-time methods using both forward scatter (TOFD) and backscatter (various
tip diffraction methods) are probably the most accurate, but even these methods must
have considerable tolerances placed on the estimates they provide. In spite of many
studies and round-robin trials demonstrating otherwise, amplitude based methods are still
being used with the idea that they can provide "accurate" results on real flaws.

It was recently pointed out to the writer that the idea of relating amplitude to target size
was well studied about 3 decades ago. In 1972 Dr. I.N. Ermolov published a summary of
his earlier works["The reflection of ultrasonic waves from targets of simple geometry",
Nondestructive Testing 5 (1972), pp 87-91] (previously published in Russian in
Defektoskopiya). This paper by Ermolov expanded on the previous work done by
Krautkramer [Fehlergrössenermittlung mit Ultraschall. Krautkrämer,J., Arch.f.d.
Eisenhuttenwesen 30 (1959), pp 693-703] that was the foundation for the AVG (DGS)
system.

This paper will review the equations derived by Ermolov and will use scanned examples
to illustrate the reasonable accuracy of the equations and limitation on selected ideal

1
 targets. Based on the significant contributions of Ermolov, this paper introduces no new
concepts. However, with the recent efforts to revive the use of amplitude sizing of flaws,
it was felt that a review of work done 30 years ago might help the understanding of the
limitations of this concept.

Ermolov's Equations
Dr. Ermolov used the same sort of assumptions as Krautkramer to derive relative
amplitudes from ideal reflectors. He noted that the significant parameters affecting
amplitude response were; size, distance and wavelength.

In his analysis, Ermolov grouped target types into three classes and considered two
general beam regions. Target groups are:

1. Point targets (both dimensions smaller than the beam)

2. Elongated targets (one dimension smaller and one dimension greater than the
beam dimension)
3. Infinite targets (dimensions of the target extend beyond the beam in all directions)

The beam regions considered were:

1. Less than the near field

2. Greater than the near field

Although the beam regions generalise as less than or greater than the near zone, Ermolov
limits the far zone equations to be suitable for distances greater than 3N (i.e. 3 near field
distances). His laboratory data shows some scatter and modifiers of up to a factor of 4 are
inserted in the equations relating to the targets in the near fields.

A further assumption made using the Ermolov equations is that the probes are
monochromatic, flat (unfocused) and round (although there is a provision in the original
paper to use a rectangular probe for some target calculations these are not used in this
discussion).

For practical purposes in manual scanning, the effect of signal maximising implies that
the flaw is centred on the beam axis. Beam intensity will decrease as the ratio of the
distance from the beam axis to the probe radius increases, but this effect is not calculated
in the equations. A further factor not considered in the Ermolov equations is the D/
effect on the asymmetry that results for angle beams as D/ approaches unity
[Wüstenberg, H., Characteristical sound field data of angle probes. Possibilities for their
theoretical and experimental determination. Paper H03, 7th International Conference on
Non-Destructive Testing, Warsaw, 1973 ].

2
Summary of Notation
V = the maximum amplitude of the echo from the target
Vo = the maximum possible signal amplitude if all energy is returned to the receiver
N = the near zone distance
T = the distance along the beam axis to the target
D = the diameter of the probe
S = the area of the probe
d = the target dimension (nominal)
= the wavelength of ultrasound (nominal)
= the attenuation coefficient

The Equations
The table below summarises most of the equations derived by Ermolov in his 1972 paper.
Notes:

Ermolov's calculation for the flat defect with area A is used with a flat disc
reflector so we would need to calculate A from A= r2 where r is the radius of the
flat disc reflector (flat bottom hole).
Brackets around the coefficients in the Near Zone equations indicate a range of
possible values indicating a high degree of uncertainty.
In both cases (Near and Far field) the amplitude is an exponential decay of the
form e-2T .
Form factors described in the 1972 paper are not included in the table nor are the
2 equations for the rectangular probes (these applied to the near zone only for the
infinite strip and infinite cylinder conditions).
For the focusing cylindrical surface (an infinite plane) the radius of the reflecting
surface is assumed to be the same as the distance along the beam axis to the
target.

3
Table
Formula for approximate echo amplitude
Near Zone Far Zone
Target Form

Flat defect area A

Sphere with diameter ds

Cylinder with diameter dc and

length lc

Infinite strip of width lst

Infinite cylinder with diameter dc

Infinite plane

Focusing cylindrical surface

Demonstration of the Equations' Validity

With the advantages of modern computerisation it would be very convenient to simply
have a computer algorithm process amplitude and length data collected to present the
user with a vertical and lateral extent. But flaws are not so predictable as ideal targets. In
Figure 1 we see a real welding flaw. It is seen to have a flat face (left side), a rounded or
curved face (top) and an irregular face (bottom and right). To assign this flaw to one of
the finite or infinite dimension classes is optimistic and we would obviously get different
estimates depending on which direction we approached it and which class we assigned it.

We can speculate the amplitude differences the flaw in the macro might provide. Using
Ermolov's equations with a 5MHz 12.5mm diameter probe we will use the infinite strip
conditions to simulate the 2mm high nonfusion seen in the macro. At the near field (1N)
the relative amplitude we might expect would be about –14dB (relative to a flat infinite
plane at the probe face). However, if this flaw gradually transitions to a 2mm diameter
cylindrical pore/slag inclusion, as indicated by its shape just inside the nonfusion portion

4
of the flaw, the relative amplitude would decrease to –25dB. Although the dimension of
the flaw remains the same, its amplitude has dropped 11dB. For lower frequency probes
the differences are less and for higher frequencies the differences increase.

Fig 1:

Variables such as orientation to the beam, acoustic impedance of the reflecting material,
surface roughness and others as discussed earlier [Amplitude Sizing and Mechanised
Ultrasonic Inspection Using Linear Scanning, E.A. Ginzel, January 2000
(http://www.ndt.net)] all add to amplitude variations.

A simple series of scans was made using a small 3mm diameter nominal 15MHz
transducer. Side Drilled Holes (SDH) and Flat Bottom Holes (FBH) were used as targets
and the amplitude responses compared at varying sound paths.

Comparing one against the other, results are not close to the predicted values. E.g. a 16dB
difference is predicted between the FBH at 5.2N and the SDH at 5.3N but the value
obtained was only 5dB. Similarly, the 4mm diameter SDH compared to the 0.5mm
diameter FBH is predicted to give a 10dB difference but for this experiment the value
was about 4dB.

Much better comparisons are had when using the same class of target. E.g. plotting the
amplitude drops over a series of diameter differences at different sound paths we see
SDHs fall within 2dB of that predicted (and at sound paths greater than 3.2N the variation
is less than 1dB). See Figure 2. In Figure 2 the Ermolov predicted values are shown with
tolerance bars of +/- 1dB.

5
Fig 2

Fig 3a

6
 Fig 3b

For a similar comparison of responses on FBHs we see slightly more variation (Figure 3).

Here the large differences predicted between 0.5 to 1mm and 1mm to 2mm diameter
FBHs is not seen in the scan results using real conditions (over sizing would result if a 2
or 3mm diameter FBH was used to estimate a smaller diameter by amplitude response).
Figure 3 suggests that beyond 3N the comparison to predicted dB differences are
generally close (within 3dB of predicted values) for targets greater than 1mm diameter
(tolerance bars on the Ermolov predicted values are +/-2dB).

In both Figures 2 & 3 the relative amplitude changes are calculated with respect to the
next adjacent target size. E.g. in Figure 3 there are 6 values plotted for the 1mm diameter
FBH. These values compare the amplitude of the 1mm diameter FBH to the 0.5mm
diameter FBH for the probe tested at the 5 soundpaths noted in the legend and these are
compared to the values predicted by the applicable Ermolov equation. Similarly, the dB
value indicated for the 3mm hole compares the 3mm to the 2mm FBH, the dB value
indicated for the 4mm hole compares the 4mm to the 3mm FBH and so on.

Figure 4 is a screen presentation using the software programme to compare expected

responses from the various diameter flat bottom holes at 5.2N (equivalent to 117mm in
water for the compression mode). The dB drop values were used to calculated the ideal
amplitude differences in the graphs.

7
Figure 4

Figure 5 indicates a C-scan and the relative responses from the flat bottom holes scanned
at 28.8mm water path to the plate plus 9.8mm steel path in the plate to the surface of the
FBH. This is roughly 2.5N yet the amplitude of the 5mm diameter FBH is slightly greater
than the 6mm diameter FBH. The beam size for this probe is quite small (on the order of
1.2mm diameter at this distance) so a large diameter target with respect to the beam size
may be evident here. The trace above the C-scan indicates maximum amplitudes for the
position through the middle of each target.

Figure 5

8
Conclusions
Amplitude of flaw signals is still an important factor and must not totally be ignored. A
flaw must have sufficient amplitude for the operator to take notice of it and investigate its
characteristics. This is even true for sizing using transit-time methods. Amplitude
therefore provides the detection level.

Ermolov's equations allow for variation in the normal working range of transducers (1 to
3 near zone lengths) when dealing with the ideal shaped reflectors. In the near field,
Ermolov's range of expected amplitudes varies by up to a factor of 4 (12dB).
Schlengermann [Private communication, January 05, 2001] points out several
considerations to keep in mind about the Ermolov equations:

The model is based on total reflection of plane wavefronts of monofrequent

waves.
If mode conversion occurs the equations may be erroneous. The transverse wave
angle therefore must be in the range between the two critical angles, i.e. in steel
not below 35° and not above 75°.
The assumptions hold only in the far field, i.e. at normalized distances above 5
near field lengths. At 3 N the error is acceptable (approx. 3 dB).

Schlengermann further cautions that to use the equations; "an inspection should use the
same class of artificial reflectors for calibration and evaluation (equivalent reflector size),
and not rely on transfer calculations from one reflector class to another".

From a field inspection point of view it is very difficult to apply the equations and so the
concept of amplitude related sizing falters. It is assumed as an "a priori" condition of
Ermolov's equations that the nature of the flaw is known and ideal. Of course this is
rarely the case in the field (as illustrated in the macro shown in Figure 1). An operator
may try to assess the nature of the flaw but the full details are still unknown in most
cases. Even then, the operator must assume that they have maximised the response with
an ideal angle for the total reflection condition. These equations have been demonstrated
using simple pulse-echo responses for isolated reflectors ideally oriented to present the
reflecting surface perpendicular to the beam. But real flaws and techniques cannot always
optimise responses. Difficulties will always arise from such simple and normal
parameters as:

Off angle orientation of the flaw with respect to the beam axis
Tandem probe arrangements and associated mode conversions
Quasi tandem effects for corner reflections
Multiple reflectors at the same distance not possible to resolve laterally
Off axis positioning may result when using mechanised scanning with fixed
standoffs unable to maximise the echo

These, and others, are sources of inaccuracies in amplitude sizing even when the flaw
type is known. But some of these problems are also limitations for transit-time methods.

9
 Even TOFD can be stymied by multiple aligned flaws when all fall within the beam
envelope just as poor orientation or small size can reduce ability to resolve a top and
bottom TOFD signal.

With so many variables, sizing by amplitude will continue to be imprecise and unreliable,
therefore reasonable sizing tolerances should be allowed. It follows that statistical
analysis of sizing by relating size estimates to amplitudes has little validity since more
than a single dimension accounts for the signal amplitude and parameters other than the
dimensions of the flaw are essentially unknowns. It follows that attempts to portray
"Probability of Sizing Correctly" in the form of curves equivalent to "Probability of
Detection" are misleading.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank O. Forli for bringing our attention to the 1972 Ermolov paper.
Also, we would like to thank U. Schlengermann for his thoughtful advise and for relating
his earlier experiences with these equations.

Finally and most significantly we would like to thank Dr. I. N. Ermolov for his comments
and for providing us with further background information on the subject matter.

http://www.ndt.net/article/v07n01/ginzel/ginzel.htm

10