ELSEVIER Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824

Effect of viscosity on ultrasound wave reflection from a

solid/liquid interface
Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam *
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA

Received 4 April 1996; revised 7 October 1996

Abstract

A study of the simulated reflection of a wideband ultrasound shear wave from the solid/viscous fluid interface is presented.
Various parameters affecting reflection factors including the material properties of the solid, fluid properties like density and
viscosity, and the operating frequency are discussed. Simulated ultrasonic response waveforms are compared with the experimentally
obtained data for NIST traceable calibration standards of viscosity. A good agreement was observed between the simulated and
experimental waveforms at various viscosities and for different solid substrates.

Keywords: Viscosity; Ultrasound reflection; Simulation

1. Introduction predicting viscosity using only the magnitude of a

Measurement of material properties using ultrasound
is a well-researched area of study. Ultrasound has been
used to measure the viscosity of fluids as early as 1949
[I]. It has since been explored as a device for non-
invasive, on-line property and process monitoring [ 2-51.
Early research has concentrated on the conventional
means of producing and detecting ultrasound [6]. This
method of employing piezoelectric transducers to gener-
ate and receive ultrasound is, by far, the simplest
approach. Piezoelectric transducers have many distinct
advantages [7], which have so far outweighed their
disadvantages. Recently, a hybrid system using laser-
based generation and piezoelectric transducer-based
detection has been used to measure viscosity [8].
The traditional ultrasound-based approach to obtain-
ing viscosity has been to correlate it with ultrasound
properties like attenuation and reflection factors. A
viscosity sensor based on shear horizontal acoustic sur-
face wave mode has been developed [9] where the
propagation loss and the phase shift between the refer-
ence and the loaded waveforms were used to predict the
viscosity. Approaches based on continuity of stresses
and displacements [lo] at the solid/liquid interface have
also been used to derive the reflection/transmission
coefficients. Based on these derivations, a method of
* Corresponding author. Department of Aerospace Engineering and
Mechanics, Mail Stop 9549, Mississippi State University, MS 39762,
USA; fax: + l-601-325-7730; e-mail: KBI@ra.msstate.edu.
reflected shear ultrasound RF pulse has been demon-
strated by Sheen et al. [ 51. Since the ultrasound response
to viscous loading depends on frequency, most measure-
ments were made assuming that the operating frequency
was the resonant central frequency of a wideband ultra-
sonic transducer. The aim of this paper is to understand
the effect of broadbanded nature of the transducer on
the solid-viscous fluid interface.
2. Theoretical background
The basis of shear reflectance method was obtained
by Moore and McSkimin [6] using stress equality at
the surface of contact between the viscous fluid and the
solid base (Fig. 1). This relation is further modified [ 111
to obtain a relation between the viscous impedance of
the fluid and complex ultrasound reflection factor for a
given set of substrate material properties. Since the
complex reflection factor can be represented in an expo-
nential form, the amplitude is referred to as the absolute
reflection factor and phase as the phase difference in
this paper.
The complex acoustic impedance (2) of the fluid in
terms of its viscosity and density is given as Z = (ipqo)“’
[ 123, where p is the density and q is the shear viscosity
of the fluid, and o is the circular frequency of the
propagating wave. If we assume the complex impedance
of the fluid as Z = R + ix, a relation between the phase

0041-624X/96/$15.00 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PZZ SOO41-624X(96)00082-0
818 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam 1 Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824
Viscous Liquid
Fig. 1. Schematic of plane polarized shear horizontal
propagation at a solid-fluid interface.
difference (40) and the absolute reflection factor (r) is
obtained by equating the real parts:
1 - 2r2( 1 + 2 sin2(@)) + r4 = 0.
The imaginary part gives the relation between viscosity,
phase difference and the absolute reflection factor as,
2pzci cos2(8,) I sin(@)( 1 - r2)
~=xpfcos2(8,)(1+rZ+2rCos(@))2’
where ps and c, are the density and shear wave speed in
the substrate respectively, f is the frequency of propagat-
ing wave and, 8, and 0r are the angles of incidence and
transmission of the ultrasound wave at the interface
defined by Snell’s law and the shear wave velocities c,
and cf as,
of = sin-’ [sin(B,)cf/c,].
In these relations, we assume the fluid media to be
perfectly viscous (Newtonian fluid), and therefore neglect
the elastic component of the shear modulus of the fluid.
The reflection factor relationship with viscosity has been
decoupled to a relation between viscosity and either the
absolute reflection factor or the phase difference.
2.1. Parameters affecting rejection factors
The effect of viscosity on the absolute reflection factor
and the phase difference are shown in Fig. 2. With an
increase in the viscosity of the fluid media, the absolute
reflection factor decreases exponentially (Fig. 2a). The
phase on the other hand increases (Fig. 2b). This beha-
vior holds until the phase reaches a discontinuity
(r x 0.41). In the physical problem, other effects such as
relaxation [9] become important and this state is not
achieved for Fig. 2. As the angle of incidence of the
ultrasound wave increases, effect of viscous loading on
the shear wave becomes more prominent, leading to an
increase in sensitivity of the reflection factors to change
in viscosity.
The fluid properties p and q both have a similar
relationship with the reflection factors [Eq. (2)]. The
fluid properties of NIST traceable calibration standards
(obtained from Cannon Instruments Inc.) were used to
study their relative effects on the reflection factors. A
typical variation in fluid density is 891 to 872 kg/m3 due
to a temperature change from 25 to 60°C and the
corresponding variation in viscosity is from 416 to
26 poise. Density change due to temperature variation
is an order of magnitude less than corresponding viscos-
ity change. Hence, the effect of density on the reflection
factors is also an order of magnitude less than the effect
of viscosity change (Fig. 3).
The operating frequency governs the sensitivity of
wave
reflection factors to viscosity (Fig. 4). As the operating
frequency (f) increases, the slope of the viscosity versus
reflection factors curve increases, leading to greater
sensitivity to small viscosity changes. This is true for
both phase difference and absolute reflection factor. The
solid substrate material properties come into effect by
(1)
the virtue of an impedance mismatch. As the impedance
mismatch decreases (Fig. 5), the total energy transferred
to the fluid increases and consequently the reflected
energy and phase are more sensitive to a change in
(2) viscosity of the fluid.
2.2. Simulation of rejected ultrasonic wave response
For the simulation of the ultrasonic shear wave
response from a solid-fluid interface, normal incidence
situation (0, = Bf= 0) were considered. Material proper-
ties of three solid substrates (Plexiglas, graphite and
(3) aluminum) and various calibration fluids were used
in the simulation. To simulate the fluid loading, the
actual reference signals had to be obtained for each
transducer/substrate combination. The reference signals
were obtained at zero load (stress free state), from the
back-wall reflection of a solid substrate (Fig. 6).
Wideband ultrasound waves were generated and
received by Y-cut broadband piezoelectric transducers
(Panametrics V153 and V154, with center frequencies
1 and 2.25 MHz respectively), pulsed using a pulser/
receiver (Panametrics PR5052). The received ultrasonic
signals were averaged at 256 samples per signal to reduce
random noise. These signals were digitized using an 8 bit
digital oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS 320). The digitized
signals (x(t)) were gated and windowed using a rectangu-
lar window to avoid pseudo phase changes associated
with other windows. The amplitude (AR(@) and phase
(&(w)) information was obtained using standard Fourier
transforms [ 13,141 represented as follows:
x(t) c, A&) exp(i&&)). (4)
A -6 dB bandwidth of the ultrasound signal was
assumed to avoid portions of the spectrum with a low
signal/noise ratio (SNR). The reflection factors (r&q u))
for the substrate-fluid interface were theoretically com-
 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam J Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824 819

2500
$
._
: 2ooa
.r 1
- 1500

1
C

::
$ 1000
._
>
500 -J
OZ.4
I
0

(b)

2500.
0)
.E

2 2000-

.r
a 1500-
.il

I:
y) lOOO-
._
>
soo-

01
0

Fig. 2. Typical plots (theoretical) showing the variation of (a) the absolute reflection factor and (b) the phase difference, with viscosity and angle
of incidence of plane polarized shear wave at the solid (Plexiglas)/fluid (oil) interface.

puted using Eqs. ( 1) and (2) as: expected response spectrum using standard algorithms:

r&4 44 = Ir&, 491exp(iW4 r)). (9 4(e4 r) exp(iMc4 rl))++ As(t). (8)

A lookup table was used, since the relationship
The real part of this inverse transform gives the simulated
between viscosity and reflection factors is indirect. The
RF response. This simulated RF response was archived
absolute reflection factors and phase differences corre-
for comparison with experiments.
sponding to each frequency were factored from the
The experimental RF response was also obtained
frequency spectrum using the relations:
using the experimental setup illustrated in Fig. 6. After
A&J, 4 = AR64 I~A%49Iv (6) the reference signal required for the simulation was
obtained, the substrate was loaded with the calibration
MJ.4 44 = #R(W)- 4(% ?>* (7) fluid. The fluid was maintained at a constant temper-
An inverse Fourier transform was performed on the ature, and the experimental RF response (&(t)), due to
820 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam / Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824

Density of Fluid

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Viscosity in Poise

Fig. 3. Variation of phase difference with change in fluid density and viscosity.

frequency

1 MHz

4MHz

0 SO 100 150
Viscosity in Poise

Fig. 4. Effect of operating frequency on the relation between the phase difference and viscosity.

the viscous loading assumed in the simulation,
obtained.
3. Results and discussion
Plexiglas, graphite and aluminum substrates were
used to obtain the experimental data. Fig. 7 shows the
experimental and simulated waveforms obtained for
Plexiglas/fluid N15000 (q = 416.4 poise and p =
was 891.3 kg/m3 at 25°C) interface. Fig. 7(a) shows the refer-
ence signal (x(t)) for a Plexiglas/air interface. The ampli-
tude spectra (A&B)) of this reference signal and response
due to the assumed viscous loading ( Irt(q ?)I), within
the bandwidth of the RF signal are shown in Fig. 7(b).
Corresponding phase spectra (&(o)) and response due
to the assumed viscous loading (@&o, q)) for the same
RF signal are illustrated in Fig. 7(c). the simulated RF
response (As(t)) is plotted along with the reference (AR(t))
and the experiment (Au(t)) in Fig. 7(d). The experimental
 Vimal Shah, KrtihhnanBalasubramaniam/ Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824
fj 0.6
a
d
.a Os
0.1
0.0
0 5000
Fig. 5. Effect of substrate material properties on the relation between the phase difference and viscosity.
f
Fig. 6. Block diagram showing experimental setup.
and the simulated responses are similar and as expected,
have a reduced amplitude and a phase delay when
compared with the reference. Figs. 8,9 and 10 show the
correlation of experimental and simulated data for
different substrates. Data, obtained using Plexiglas as
the substrate, show the most sensitivity to change in
viscosity (Fig. 8). The response of aluminum/viscous
fluid interface to change in viscosity, shows the least
sensitivity (Fig. 10).
In general, we observed that the comparison between
the experimental data and the simulation showed a good
agreement at the onset of the waveform until the first
peak. After the first rise (or the second rise when the
1 MHz transducer is used), the correlation began to
degrade. It was observed that the degradation became
severe with an increase in viscosity of the fluid. This was
true for all three types of substrates. Some factors that
821
Substrate Solid
----m--- Plexiglas
--+--- Graphite
--bk- Aluminum
- -a- - Steel
+_-~a- _ 4-
-*--
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Viscosity in Poise
may be contributing to the disagreement in comparison
are discussed next.
In the derivation of Eq. (2), it is assumed that the
media is semi-infinite and the incident wave is a plane
wave. In the experiment, however the substrate and
source were both finite. The plane wave assumption is
not strictly valid and the generated waves were spherical
in nature. Also, the transducer does not generate a
perfect shear wave and due to the Poisson’s effect shear
wave generation is always associated with simultaneous
generation of compressional waves. Compressional
waves normally travel almost twice as fast as shear
waves in solids and are affected by the fluid bulk
modulus and viscosity. Depending on the substrate
characteristics, these waves could be received at the
same time as shear waves and so may interfere. It is
difficult to eliminate the effects of these compressional
waves entirely.
A maximum error of +2.5% is expected in all the
measurements. Temporal averaging was used to reduce
the instrument noise. Trigger jittering delay may have
been averaged and could have led to experimental errors
in the measurement of the phase.
Accounting for phase difference in the reflected wave
is not in complete agreement with the experimental
phase difference. In the simulations, the phase difference
relation is assumed to be valid only within the bandwidth
of the received ultrasound signal. Physically, the relation
is valid for the low and high frequency regions beyond
the bandwidth. So, the fluid responds to the entire
frequency range, whereas the simulation response is only
with respect to the bandwidth. Hence, a small difference
in the simulated signal compared with the experimental
data can be expected.
 822 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam / Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824

-0.15
0 100 200 20 40 60 80
Time in 20 * nanosec. Frequency in 12.2 * KHz

-6
20 40 60 80 0 100 200
Frequency in 12.2 * KHz Time in 20 * nanosec.

Fig. 7. Simulation of reflection from Plexiglas/fluid NlSOOO (416.4 poise at 25°C) interface for 1 MHz transducer. (a) Reference signal (@),
(b) amplitude spectrum (-) and viscous loading response (x) to amplitide, (c) phase spectrum (-) and viscous loading response (x) to phase, and
(d) comparison between reference (@I),experimental (0) and simulated (-) waveforms.

p”
z -0.05
E”
4
-0.20
0 50 100 0 50 100
Time in 5 * nanosec. Time in 5 * nanosec.

m
% 0.10
> 0.10 (cl
E
.f .9
d 0.00 . 2 0.00
; : .%
%
=
z
*c 4
-0.10 -0.10
0 50 100 150 0 50 100
Time in 5 * nanosec. Time in 5* nanosec.

Fig. 8. Comparison of simulated (-) and experimental (0) reflections from a Plexiglas/viscous fluid interface. Simulations for fluids (a) NlOOO
(19.94 poise) (b) N2000 (52.49 poise), (c) N4000 (104.5 poise), and (d) all three simulations shown together (+ NlOOO, + N2000, x N4000), for
2.25 MHz transducer at 25°C.

4. Conclusions experiments. Simulations compare well with the experi-

mental measurements. The comparison is dependent on
Simulations based on the impedance model of reflec- the acoustic impedance mismatch between the substrate
tion of plane polarized ultrasound shear waves from a and the viscous fluid, as well as the viscosity of the fluid.
solid/fluid substrate were presented and validated by The sensitivity of the shear wave reflection response to
 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balambramaniam / Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824 823

Time in 10 * nanosec. Time in 10 * nanosec.

k 0.2 (cl
E

0.0

-0.2
w

0 150 300 0 150 300

Time in 10 * nanosec. Time in 10 * nanosec.

-.
__-
--
Fig. 9. Comparison of simulated (-) and experimental (0) reflections from a graphite/viscous fluid interface. Simulations for fluids (a) NlOOO
(19.94 poise), (b) N2000 (52.49 poise), (c) N4000 (104.5 poise) and (d) all three simulations shown together (+ NlOOO, l N2000, x N4000), for
1 MHz transducer at 25°C.

2 (a)

lIii!il
.9 0.4
4

@
4
5 iO.2
-0.8
0 150 0 150
Time in 10 * nanosec. Time in 10 * nanosecs.

>
.: 0.4 IIfC!EI (c)
%
.E, 0.4

5 4
5 -0.2 3 -0.2
3 %
4
-0.8 -0.8
0 150 0 150
Time in 10 * nanosecs. Time in 10 * nanosecs

Fig. 10. Comparison of simulated (-) and experimental (0) reflections from an aluminum/viscous fluid interface. Simulations for fluids (a) NlOOO
(19.94 poise), (b) N2000 (52.49 poise), (c) N4000 (104.5 poise) and (d) all three simulations shown together (+ NlOOO, l N2000, x NW) for
1 MHz transducer at 25°C.

changes in viscosity was obtained for the substrate with Acknowledgements

best impedance match. Some reasons for discrepancies
between the impedance model-based simulations and This work is supported by the United States
the experiments were discussed in the context of experi- Department of Energy, through grant number
mental and signal processing procedures. DE-FG02-93CH-10575 to the Diagnostic Instru-
824 Vimal Shah, Krishnan Balasubramaniam / Ultrasonics 34 (1996) 817-824

mentation and Analysis Laboratory at the Mississippi
State University.
References
[l] W.P. Mason et al., Phys. Rev. 75(6) (1949) 936.
[2] W.P. Mason and H.J. McSkimin, Bell Systems Tech. J. 3( 1)
(1952) 122.
[ 31 W. Roth and S.R. Rich, J. Appl. Phys. 24(7) (1953) 940.
[4] L.C. Lynnworth, IEEE Trans. Sonics and Ultrasonics 22(2)
(1974) 71.
[S] S.H. Sheen et al., Rev. Prog. QNDE, eds. D.O. Thompson and
D.E. Chimenti, 14(A) (1995) 1151.
[6] R.S. Moore and H.J. McSkimin, 1970 Physical Acoustics, Vol. 6,
ed. W.P. Mason (Academic Press, New York, 1970) pp. 167-243.
[7] J. Krautkramer and H. Krautkramer, Ultrasonic Testing of
Materials (Springer, Berlin, 1990).
[8] R.D. Costley Jr. et al., Rev. Prog. QNDE eds. D.O. Thompson
and D.E. Chimenti, 15 (1996).
[9] T. Sato et al., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 32 (5B 1) (1993) 2392.
[lo] H.T. Chien (1995) Private communication.
[11] V.V. Shah et al., Rev. Prog. QNDE, eds. D.O. Thompson and
D.E. Chimenti, 15 (1996) 2067.
[12] K.F. Herzfeld and T.A. Litovitz, Absorption and Dispersion of
Ultrasonic Waves (Academic Press, New York, 1959).
[13] E. Oran Brigham, The Fast Fourier Transform and its
Applications (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1988).
[ 141 A. Papoulis, Signal Analysis (McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1984).
[15] T.A. Litovitz and C.M. Davis, Physical Acoustics, Vol. 2, ed.
W.P. Mason (Academic Press New York, 1964) pp. 218-349.
[ 161 M.C. Davis, J. Acoust. Sot. Amer. 64(2) (1978) 406.
[ 171 S.H. Sheen et al., IEEE Symp. Ultrasonics (1988) 537.