Abstract for housden_tr623

Cambridge University Engineering Department Technical Report CUED/F-INFENG/TR623


R.J. Housden, A.H. Gee, G.M. Treece and R.W. Prager

January 2009

This paper compares two approaches to 3D ultrasonic axial strain imaging. The first uses a tracked ultrasound probe swept manually over the region of interest to build up a co-registered sequence of 2D strain images, each obtained by comparing neighbouring B-scans in the sequence. The alternative uses a mechanically-swept 3D probe to record pre- and post-deformation volumes, which are then processed to yield a volume of strain data. The resulting strain images depend on the stress fields induced by the different probe footprints and also on the signal processing techniques used to produce the strain volumes. Both of these factors are considered in this paper, which presents a comparison of the two approaches based on finite element simulations validated through in vitro experimentation. The conclusion is that, for a given frame density, high quality axial strain data is more easily obtained using the 3D probe. However, the freehand approach might be preferable in situations where limited access to the scanning target restricts the use of a large footprint probe.

[576 KBytes PDF, 18 pages]

(ftp:) housden_tr623.pdf (http:) housden_tr623.pdf

If you have difficulty viewing files that end '.gz', which are gzip compressed, then you may be able to find tools to uncompress them at the gzip web site.

If you have difficulty viewing files that are in PostScript, (ending '.ps' or '.ps.gz'), then you may be able to find tools to view them at the gsview web site.

We have attempted to provide automatically generated PDF copies of documents for which only PostScript versions have previously been available. These are clearly marked in the database - due to the nature of the automatic conversion process, they are likely to be badly aliased when viewed at default resolution on screen by acroread.