Browsing by Subject "Calibration"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
-
(2020)The feasibility of quantitatively measuring ultrasound in air with a Schlieren arrangement has been demonstrated before, but previous work demonstrating calibration of the system combined with computation to yield the 3D pressure field does not exist. The present work demonstrates the feasibility of this both in theory and practice, and characterizes the setup used to gain the results. Elementary ray optical and Schlieren theory is exhibited to support the claims. Derivation of ray optical equations related to quantitative Schlieren measurements are shown step by step to help understand the basics. A numerical example based on the theoretical results is then displayed: Synthetic Schlieren images are computed for a theoretical ultrasonic field using direct numerical integration, then the ultrasonic field is recovered from the Synthetic Schlieren images using the inverse Abel transform. Accuracy of the inverse transform is evaluated in presence of synthetic noise. The Schlieren arrangement, including the optics, optomechanics, and electronics, to produce the results is explained along with the stroboscopic use of the light source to freeze ultrasound in the photographs. Postprocessing methods such as background subtraction and median and Gaussian filtering are used. The repeatability and uncertainty of the calibration is examined by performing repeated calibration while translating or rotating the calibration targets. The ultrasound fields emitted by three transducers (100 kHz, 175 kHz, and 300 kHz) when driven by 5 cycle sine bursts at 400 Vpp are measured at two different points in time. The measured 3D pressure fields measured for each transducer are shown along with a line profile near the acoustic axis. Pressure amplitudes range near 1 kPa, which is near the acoustic pressure, are seen. Nonlinearity is seen in the waveforms as expected for such high pressures. Noise estimates from the numerical example suggest that the pressure amplitudes have an uncertainty of 10% due to noise in the photographs. Calibration experiments suggest that additional uncertainty of about 2% per degree of freedom (Z, X, rotation) is to be expected unless especial care is taken. The worst-case uncertainty is estimated to be 18%. Limitations and advantages of the method are discussed. As Schlieren is a non-contacting method it is advantageous over microphone measurements, which may affect the field they are measuring. As every photograph measures the whole field, no scanning of the measurement device is required, such as with a microphone or with an LDV. Suggestions to improve the measurement setup are provided.
-
(2020)Two different bio transfer standards (BTS), composed of fatty acid bilayers, NanoRuler and NanoStar were developed. NanoRuler consists of a nanometer scale staircase with eight steps that are 5 nm tall each and NanoStar is designed to have topological structure with sharp edge and three height planes 5 nm elevated with respect to each other. With NanoRuler nanometer vertical calibration from 5 nm to 40 nm is possible and NanoStar allows the evaluation of the instrument transfer function (ITF). Due to the soft nature of the standards, the topographical stability was researched. Thus, an investigation of the topographical stability of three NanoRulers and one NanoStar across 24 months was done by measuring the surface topography with a custom-built Scanning White Light Interferometer (SWLI). The BTS were measured over 100 times during the experiments and were stored in laboratory conditions. The step heights of the structures were calculated with a histogram method and the surface roughness of the samples was evaluated using the Sq parameter. The step height analysis method was compared to the standard method (ISO 5436-1) where applicable and no notable differences were found. In both roughness and step height data no linear or non-linear trends were found, and the step heights compared well with the literature values. For NanoRuler the step heights were 4.9 nm, 10.1 nm, 15.1 nm, 20.1 nm, 25 nm, 30.1 nm, 35.1 nm and 40.2 nm and the respective stabilities were 0.3 nm, 0.3 nm, 0.6 nm, 0.9 nm, 1.3 nm, 1.6 nm, 2.1 nm, and 2.5 nm. For NanoStar the step heights were -5.1 nm and 5.2 nm with stabilities 0.3 nm and 0.4 nm respectively. The NanoRuler had a surface roughness stability of 0.02 nm whereas NanoStar had a roughness stability of 0.01 nm. After 24 months both BTS types preserved their topographical structure and no issues with surface topographical stability were observed.
Now showing items 1-2 of 2