NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

www.elsevier.com/locate/ndteint

Beam focusing behavior of linear phased arrays

L. Azar, Y. Shi, S.-C. Wooh*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 1-272, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge,
MA 02139, USA
Received 9 April 1998; received in revised form 3 February 1999; accepted 17 July 1999

Abstract
One of the fundamental features of phased arrays is the ability to focus the propagating waves to a specific point within the load material by
inducing a parabolic time delay. This required focusing time delay has been modified from the current formulation to incorporate either an
odd or even number of elements. A brief procedure leading to the derivation of the pressure distribution for beam focusing is described,
which gives rise to an unclosed form. Consequently, a numerical method is desirable for the analysis of beam focusing. Using this approach,
beam directivity and pressure distributions are studied to predict the behavior of focusing as compared to steering. This shows a benefit of
focusing over steering within the near field of the array, and that the directivity of focusing converges to that of steering in the far field.
q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ultrasonic phased array transducers; Dynamic focusing; Beam directivity; Numerical simulation; Imaging

1. Introduction
Ultrasonic phased array transducers have been around for
more than two decades, mostly in application of many medical specialties. Phased arrays were developed to rapidly
move the acoustic beam throughout a region necessary to
image the organs of interest [1]. The active role of ultrasonic
phased arrays in the medical fields, such as hyperthermia
applications, OB ultrasound and echocardiography, helped
to establish their diagnostic importance, and the continued
research and development will increase their benefit [25].
Medical transducers typically have operating frequencies
ranging from 1 to over 20 MHz, with an exception for the
case of hyperthermia, where a lower frequency (ranging
from 0.31.0 MHz [6]) focused beam is used in heating
tumors. When producing a single focus, the array is able
to increase tissue temperature, and in areas where heating is
undesirable, the phased array could take advantage of
destructive interference to minimize power deposition at
the location [7].
These arrays have been also utilized in the area of
nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of materials, mainly in
the field of nuclear inspection [8]. Elimination of the
requirements for mechanical scanning and flexible beam
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 11-617-253-7134/6044; fax: 11-617-2536044.
E-mail address: scwooh@mit.edu (S.-C. Wooh).

maneuverability are some of the attractive features of

phased arrays for NDE applications. An ultrasonic linear
phased array consists of multiple elements, which are
usually cut or etched from a single piezoelectric plate of
Lead Zirconate Titinate (PZT). The element thickness determines the operating frequency of the transducer. Another
material frequently used is polyvinylindene fluoride
(PVDF), which is a polymer being able to exhibit piezoelectric properties [4,9]. The elements are individually
excited at predetermined time delays to dynamically steer
or focus the acoustical wavefronts.
The most sophisticated ultrasound scanners now use
linear N 1 arrays containing over hundred transducer
elements that may be multiplexed and/or electronically
steered and focused via phased array technique [11].
Although this paper discusses only the linear arrays, it is
interesting to note that two-dimensional (2D) N M
arrays will be essential in future diagnostic ultrasound
equipment to improve the image quality [11]. The most
immediate application of 2D phased arrays is to reduce
B-scan thickness by dynamic focusing in the elevation
plane perpendicular to the azimuth. 2D arrays can focus
and steer ultrasound in three-dimensional space, at the
expense of greatly increased complexity. While there has
been much interest in the development of practical forms of
such arrays, none are currently available commercially [12].
The concept of this paper on focusing may be extended to a
2D-array model.

0963-8695/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0963-869 5(99)00043-2

190

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

Fig. 1. Phase steered sound field of linear array us 308; N 16; f

500 kHz; d l=2; c 6320m=s:

Phase steering is accomplished by sequentially pulsing

the array elements. The direction of the acoustic beam
propagation may be reoriented to any azimuthal angle
merely by altering the timing sequence of the excitation
pulses [13]. The sound field is represented as Huyghen
waves emitted from each element. All the individual wavefronts will add to produce a maximum acoustic intensity
along the desired direction. For a homogeneous and isotropic acoustic medium, the constant inter-element delay for
steering the ultrasonic field can be calculated by
Dt

d sin us
c

where Dt is the time delay between adjacent elements, d the

Fig. 2. Phase focused sound field of linear array us 308; N 16; f

500 kHz; d l=2; c 6320 m=s:

distance between elements, u s the required steering angle,

and c is the wave speed in the medium.
The analytical pressure distribution regarding beam
steering was previously derived by Wooh and Shi [14
18]. This analytical model is crucial in resolving the key
parameters for these arrays. By analyzing the directivity
patterns, beam steering characteristics were studied and
optimum transducer parameters were determined. The
fundamental transducer parameters studied include
frequency (f), the element width (a), the center-to-center
spacing of the elements (d), the number of elements (N),
the total aperture dimension (D), and the elevation
dimension (L).
Since the analytical solution is valid only in the far field,
the near field pressure distribution was computed numerically. Fig. 1 shows a snapshot of the pressure profile of a
50 kHz 16-element array being steered at 308 in aluminum
(c 6320 m=s: This simulation constitutes a trace of the
waves propagated by each element, and demonstrates
Huygens principle of wave interaction needed to steer the
acoustic wavefronts. In the simulation, as discussed in more
detail later, each element is considered as an assembly of
infinitely large point sources of the same phase and each
element is phase delayed.
As stated previously, another important feature of the
phased array is its capability of beam focusing. Von
Ramm and Smith [1] stated that little image improvement
would result if the focal point is beyond the transition range
of the array denoted by:
ZTR

D2
4l

where D is the overall dimension of the array, and l is the

wavelength in the acoustic medium. This transition range
separates the near field from the far field of the array. If
targets within the near field of the array aperture are imaged,
that is, at distances less than ZTR, then focusing may be
employed to increase the system resolution. Fig. 2
demonstrates a numerical pressure profile of an array
being focused 308 at a focal length of 10 cm. What is not
explained is how focusing improves the resolution over
steering. Understanding the behavior within this transition
zone is very critical. As can be seen by Eq. (2), as the overall
dimension of the array increases, this transition zone will
also increase by a factor squared.
An analytical solution to establish the pressure
distribution for focusing was attempted; resulting in an
unclosed form [18]. Therefore, a numerical model was
developed to simulate the pressure field for steering or
focusing within the transition zone (near field), and beyond
(far field). This model is then used in this paper to
demonstrate how focusing improves resolution in the near
field, and how focusing behavior converges to that of
steering in the far field. This latter point is also proven
analytically.

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

191

Fig. 3. Geometry of liner phased array used in deriving the focusing formula for even-numbered arrays.

2. Generalized focusing formula

Focusing of the transmitted beam is accomplished by
combining a spherical timing relationship with a linear one
to produce a beam, which is focused at a given range and
propagated at a specific azimuth angle. The focusing delays
can be calculated by the following traditional formula [1,9]:
"
#1=2 !
 2
F
nd
nd
12 11
22 sin us
3
1 t0
tn
c
F
F
where tn is the required delay for the nth element n
; 22; 21; 0; 1; 2; ; F the focal length, and t0 is a constant
to keep the delays positive. This focusing formula has two
limitations as it stands. First, it is only valid for an odd number
of elements. Invariably, most phased arrays have an even
number of elements. Second, the required constant t0 to keep
the delays positive is very clumsy to utilize.
In order to overcome these deficiencies, a generalized
formula for handling both even and odd number of elements
was derived. Referring to Fig. 3, the following geometric
relationship can be attained:


2
N21
d
F cos us 2 1 F sin us 2 nd 2
2
F 2 tn 2 t0 c2

for the element n 0; 1; ; N 2 1; where N is the total

number of elements. Note that in Fig. 3, the first element n

0 starts at the right-hand side. Solving for tn ; we obtain

"
(
!!2
F
d
N 21
d
12 11
n2
22 sinus
tn
c
F
2
F
N21
n2
2

!#1=2 )
1 t0 :

The constant t0 can be determined by substituting the boundary

condition tn 0 for n 0 into Eq. (5), which results in:
(
"
!!2
F
d
N21
12 11
2
t0
c
F
2
d
2 2 sin us
F

N21
2
2

!#1=2 )
:

Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5), we obtain

"
(
!!2
F
d
N21
12 11
n2
tn
c
F
2
2d
N21
n2
2
F
2
(
"
F
12 11
2
c
2d
2
F

#1=2 )

!
sin us

N21
2
2

d
F

N21
n2
2

!!2

#1=2 )

!
sin us

192

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

Simplifying, a general solution for the required element focusing delays can be written as:
#1=2
("
!2
F
Nd
2Nd
11
sin us
1
tn
c
F
F
8
"
#1=2 )
!2
n 2 Nd
2n 2 Nd
sin us
2 11
2
F
F
for any number of elements N, where tn is the required time
delay for element n 0; ; N 2 1; N N 2 1=2; d the
center-to-center spacing between elements, F the focal length
from the center of the array, u s the steering angle from the
center of array, and c is the wavespeed. This generalized focusing time-delay formula is valid for any number of array
elements (even or odd) for 08 # us # 908 : Furthermore, by
eliminating the constant t0, the formula guarantees positive
time delays which do not have to be larger than necessary.
Note that this time-delay law simply compensates for the
propagation time from the elements of the array to the desired
focal point.
3. Pressure distribution for beam focusing
A phased array is treated as a linear array consisting of
single element sources, and each element source is approximated as an assembly of infinitely large number of simple
line sources arranged in the width direction [16]. In this
study, only 2D behavior of the arrays is taken into account.
The simple source is defined as an infinitely long cylinder
pulsating radially to generate cylindrical waves. Note that
we are interested in analyzing the beam behavior in the
azimuthal plane of the linear array so that the effect of
elevation dimension is not taken into account in deriving
the analytical expressions and only 2D behavior was taken
into account here. In order to understand the propagation
behavior other than the azimuthal directions, a full 3D
analysis is required [10]. The general solution of this
axisymmetric problem takes the form of Hankel function
of the second kind for a diverging wave, and the pressure
of the waves radiated from a simple line source can be
written as
 1=2
p0
jvt 2 kr
9
pr; t
r
where r is the radial distance from the simple source, v the
angular frequency, j a unit imaginary number, and p0 is a
function of the wave number k. The analytical pressure
distribution for the beam focusing was then obtained using
the Huygens principle as (see derivation in Appendix A)


ka sin u
 1=2 sin


p0
jka sin u
2
exp 2
pr; u; t
ka sin u
r
2
2
!
NX
21
2
expjAn 1 Bn expjvt 2 kr;
10

n0

Fig. 4. Steering, with a directivity taken in the near field r 10 cm; N

32; c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz, us 308; and d l=2:

and
A

cN 2 1
cDt20
2
D
t
2
v
D
t
1
kd
sin
u
;
B

:
0
0
2F tan2 us
2F tan2 us
11

This expression is useful for studying the far field characteristics of the beam focused beyond the transition range, as
discussed later. However, it should be noted from Eq. (10)
that the pressure distribution for beam focusing cannot be
simplified into a closed form. This means that the analytical
method is not possible; instead, the numerical method to
simulate the acoustic field is desirable and powerful.
Since an analytical solution to the pressure distribution
cannot be attained with focusing, a numerical procedure can
be invaluable. Simulation studies have been previously
conducted by several investigators [19,20]. In our simulation study, linear arrays were modeled by combining steering and focusing both in the near and far fields, and by
producing directivities at any specified distance. The

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

Fig. 5. Focusing, with a directivity taken in the near field r 10 cm; N

32; c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz; us 308; F 10 cm; and d l=2:

pressure along the steered direction for steering or focusing

is also simulated.
The simulation is based upon Huygens principle, which
states that wave interactions can be analyzed by summing
the phases and amplitudes contributed by a number of
spherically radiating simple sources. The pressure at a
given distance from the source is computed as follows:

pr; t

p0 a
r

1=2

193

Fig. 6. Steering, with a directivity taken in the far field r 50 cm; N 32;
c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz; us 308; and d l=2:

simulation takes the effect of both element width (a) and

elevation dimension (L) into account. The contributions of
all the elements each modified by the product of a cosine
envelope are then added up. This cosine contribution
provides a more realistic representation for slotted arrays,
as demonstrated by Selfridge et al. [21].

4. Results and discussion

expjvt 2 kr 2 ar

12

where p0 is the initial pressure (Pa), a a constant, a the attenuation coefficient Np=m and r is the radial distance from the
source (m). Our simulation routine is similar to that utilized by
Buchanan and Hynynen [7], in that they modeled the transducer as an evenly spaced array of simple sources a p l;
whereas our model treats it as an ensemble of elements of finite
widths. Each element is assumed to be made up of a large
number of point sources in the same phases so that the

A numerical simulation of the full-field acoustic pressure

distribution is utilized to demonstrate some key effects of
focusing within and beyond the transition range of a linear
phased array. A comparison between steering and focusing
is undertaken, revealing a distinct benefit of focusing over
steering within the near field.
The array simulated is made up of 32 elements, with a
frequency of 2.25 MHz, center-to-center element spacing of
l /2, and a wavespeed of 6320 m/s. The transition range for
this array is calculated to be 18 cm. The array is typical to

194

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

the resolution of which is determined by the sharpness of the

main lobe. By contrast, Fig. 5(a) shows an image pressure
distribution as the beam is steered at the same angle and is
also being focused at a distance F 10 cm: This directivity
shown in Fig. 5(b), which passes through this focal point
r F; and shows a dramatic improvement over that of
steering. Looking at the respective pressure distribution
images, the focusing effect in the near field is quite obvious.
Focusing enables the acquisition of data from within a
region, which is not attainable by steering only, and
contributes to increased resolution capabilities within the
transition zone of the array.
Referring back to Eq. (10), if the focal length is infinitely
large, i.e. F ! ; then A ! 2vDt0 1 kd sin u, and B !
0: In this case, the pressure distribution becomes

pr; u; t

 p 1=2 sin
0

 ka sin u 
2
ka sin u
2

NX
21
 jka sin u 
expjvt 2 kr
expjn2vDt0
exp 2
2
n0

1 kd sin u

that used for NDE of steel structures, but the conclusions

brought forth are valid for other applications including
medical diagnosis.
A directivity plot is used to show the pressure at a radial
distance from the center of the array, and is an accepted
standard to demonstrate the accuracy of steering and
focusing behavior. An ideal plot should have a very good
directivity, characterized by a very narrow main lobe width
[14]. Directivities are derived from the image of pressure
distribution, which maps the contributions of pressure from
each element via Huygens principle. These contributions
incorporate the respective phase shifts, which lead to
constructive and destructive interference of the ultrasound.
Fig. 4(a) shows an image of the pressure distribution for a
beam steered at 308, and Fig. 4(b) shows the directivity at
r 10 cm: Since the directivity is taken in the near field of
the array, the beam steering quality is quite poor, characterized by the wide and irregularly shaped main lobe. A
received signal from this region could not be properly
mapped to the appropriate location on an image, because

 ka sin u 

h vDt 2 kd sin u  i
0
N
2
 vDt 2 kd sin u 
0
sin
2
 vDt 2 kd sin u 

sin

2
ka sin u
2
 ka sin u i
h
h
exp 2 j
exp 2 j
2
i
N 2 1 expjvt 2 kr:

Fig. 7. Focusing, with a directivity taken in the far field r 50 cm; N

32; c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz; us 308; F 50 cm; and d l=2:

 p 1=2 sin

2
13

This is exactly the pressure distribution for the steering of

linear phased array [18]. This means that if the focal length
is sufficiently large, i.e. beyond the transition range, the
pressure distribution for focusing will converge to that of
steering.
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate this concept. Fig. 6(a) shows the
pressure field of the beam steered at 308, while the corresponding directivity taken at r 50 cm is shown in
Fig. 6(b). This is beyond the transition zone, hence the
directivity is good. On the other hand, Fig. 7(a) shows the
pressure field of the array now being focused in the far field
at F 50 cm; which now resembles that of steering. Taking
directivity at r F 50 cm; the benefit over focusing is
negligible as shown in Fig. 7(b). This is critical, because
this means that at the locations beyond the transition zone,
the use of only steering is sufficiently adequate. As the focal
point changes from within the near field to the far field, the
focusing effect converges into pure steering effect. Since
focusing requires analysis of a large number of scanned
points, it does introduce a cost, namely scanning time.

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

195

Fig. 8. Comparison of pressure profiles along steered angle between steering and focusing in the near field and far field N 32; c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz;
us 308; and d l=2:

Steering is much more efficient, as each sectorial line can be

analyzed at a time.
Directivities are not the only criteria that should be
considered when evaluating the importance of focusing.
Simulating the pressure along the steered direction, Fig. 8
shows how the pressure of focusing compares to that of
steering in the near and far fields. Within the transition
range, the pressure with focusing is more concentrated
than that with steering. This added pressure contribution
improves the resolution when acquiring data from the near
field. Fig. 8 also shows that, beyond the transition range, the
pressure of a focused beam along the steered direction
converges to that of steered beam. This is consistent with
the observations made analytically by studying the directivity plots.
Fig. 8 also demonstrates another important fact that the
maximum pressure does not necessarily occur at the focal
point. For example, Fig. 8(b) shows that the maximum pressure occurs at approximately 7 cm when the focal point is
set at 10 cm. For a focused transducer, the actual maxima
pressure corresponds to the location less than the specified
focal point because the diffraction effects tend to bring the
point of maximum beam intensity in the steering direction
nearer to the transducer [23]. Despite the fact that the maximum pressure occurs elsewhere than the focal spot, it is

important to note that the focal length is the distance providing the best directivity. To illustrate this phenomenon,
directivity plots are taken at three different positions: (a)
the maximum pressure point; (b) focal spot; and (c) a location beyond the focal point, as shown in Fig. 9. Note that the
best directivity is obtained at the radius equal to focal
length. It should be also noted that focusing at a specific
point would give the maximum pressure that the point can
attain. The improvements in resolution are only valid in a
small region around the focal point, and therefore imaging
within the near field would require a discrete number of
focal points per angle. Only the data that fall within the
small focal zones should be acquired and processed.

5. Conclusion
The existing delay formula required for focusing was
found to be deficient, as it could only be used for an odd
number of elements, and the required constant to keep the
delays positive was awkward. This equation had been modified to incorporate either an odd or even number of
elements, and the required constant replaced. With the
formula now defined, an attempt was made to reach an
analytical solution to the pressure distribution with focusing,

196

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

zone, it is negligible since the convergence applies to a

focal length approaching infinity.
In summary, a full-field imaging is possible by steering in
the far field and focusing in the near field. Future study
needed in this area is to establish a criterion for estimating
the range within the focal point that maintains acceptable
directivity. Experimental verification for the simulation has
already been obtained, and has shown excellent compliance
to steering directivities [22]. This experimental work is now
being extended for focusing directivities, which is also
showing excellent agreement.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Korea Highway
Corporation. We are grateful to Dr Chang-Guen Lee,
Program Manager and Mr. Keon-Chang Cho, Director of
Highway Research Institute of the KHC, for their encouragement and support.

Appendix A

Fig. 9. Focusing in the near field, with directivities taken at various

distances N 32; c 6320 m=s; f 2:25 MHz; us 308; and d l=2:

which is incomplete. Rather, a numerical simulation was

recommended to attain the pressure field, based on
Huygens principle for a discrete number of simple sources.
Numerical directivity and pressure profiles were utilized
to compare the behavior of focusing and steering within and
beyond the transition zone of the phased array. This demonstrated the importance of focusing in the near field, as the
directivity for steering is quite poor, while that of focusing is
very well defined. This transition range is proportional to the
square of the overall dimension of the array. As the number
of elements increases, there is a subsequent increase in the
region where steering cannot be used. To benefit from the
added number of elements, focusing must be used in this
dead zone. Although the maximum pressure along the
steered direction when focusing does not always coincide
with the focal point, focusing does demonstrate better
directivity at that point and an overall improvement over
steering.
The numerical simulation proved our analytical conclusion that as the focal length goes to infinity, the pressure
distribution of focusing converges to that of steering. This
validates the use of steering beyond the transition zone,
which enables faster acquisition over focusing. Although
there is still some improvement beyond this transition

A procedure leading to the derivation of the approximate

pressure distribution for beam focusing was attempted.
Unlike the case of steering [18], which resulted in an analytical solution, the results for focusing yielded an unclosed
form.
A.1. Time delay simplification
According to Taylors series expansion, the distance from
the focal point of the nth element
q
rn r2 1 nd2 2 2rnd sin us
< r 2 nd sin us 1

1
nd2 cos2 us ;
2r

A:1

for the case r q nd where r is the distance from the focal

point to the 0th element and n 0; 1; ; N 2 1: Similarly,
Eq. (5) can be rewritten as
"




#1=2
d
N21 2
d
N21
n2
n2
22 sin us
11
F
2
F
2


d
N 21
n2
< 1 2 sin us
F
2


1
d2
N21 2
2
;
A:2
1 cos us 2 n 2
2
2
F


which gives rise to the time delay between the nth and

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

n 2 1th elements,
Dtn tn 2 tn21

superposition of the pressure of single elements,

F nh
d
N 21
1 2 sin us
n212

c
F
2
1

1
d2 
N 2 1 2 i
cos2 us 2 n 2 1 2
2
2
F

d
N 21 1
d2
n2
1 cos2 us 2
2 1 2 sin us
F
2
2
F


io
N21 2
n2
2
h

d sin us
1
d2
1 cos2 us
N 2 2n:
c
cF
2

A:3

A:4

By substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (A.4), the time delay for the
focusing with steering angle u s is
Dtn Dt0 1

cDt20
2F tan2

us

N 2 2n:

A:5

This means the time delay between neighboring elements

(nth and n 2 1th) for the focusing along with steering
effect is a second order polynomial of the time delay for
pure steering Dt 0.Therefore the time delay between the nth
and the 0th elements, say Dt n, is the summation of the time
delay between the two neighboring elements Dt i, where
i 1; 2; ; n;

nDt0 1
nt 0 1

2F tan us

nN 2 2 1 4 1 6 1 1 2n

cDt20
nN 2 n2 2 n:
2F tan2 us

NX
21

pn r; u; t

n0

NX
21
n0

jka sin u
2
2

ka sin u
!1=2 sin
2
p0
k sin u
r
2

exp jvtn 2 krn

!
ka sin u
!1=2 sin
NX
21
2
p0
<
k sin u
r
n0
2
!
jka sin u
exp jvt 2 Dtn 2 kr 2 nd sin u
exp 2
2
A:8
with the assistance of Eq. (A.6), we have the final expression of pressure distribution for beam focusing


ka sin u
 1=2 sin


p0
jka sin u
2
exp 2
pr; u; t
ka sin u
r
2
2
!
NX
21
2
exp jAn 1 Bn exp jvt 2 kr;

n0

A:9
where

Dtn Dt1 1 Dt2 1 1 Dtn

cDt20
2

pr; u; t

exp

Further we can get the equation after simplification

Dt n

197

cN 2 1
cDt20
2
D
t
2
v
D
t
1
kd
sin
u
;
B

:
0
0
2F tan2 us
2F tan2 us
A:10

A:6

A.2. Analytical pressure distribution for beam focusing

For a single element, the pressure distribution can be
expressed as [14]
!
ka sin u
!1=2 sin
2
p0
pr; u; t
k
sin
u
r
A:7
2
!
jka sin u
exp jvt 2 kr:
exp 2
2
According to Huygens principle, the pressure distribution
of the phased arrays for focusing and steering is the

References
[1] Von Ramm OT, Smith SW. Beam steering with linear arrays. IEEE
Trans Biomed Engng 1983;BME-30(8):438452.
[2] Weyman AE. Principles and practice of echocardiography. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger, 1994.
[3] Thomas J-L, Fink MA. Ultrasonic beam focusing through tissue inhomogeneities with a time reversal mirror: application to transskull
therapy. IEEE Trans Ultrason, Ferroelect, Freq Control
1996;43(6):11221129.
[4] Hatfield JV, Scales NR, Armitage AD, Hicks PJ, Chen QK, Payne PA.
An integrated multi-element array transducer for ultrasound imaging.
Sensors and Actuators A 1994;41/42:167173.
[5] Turnbull DH, Foster FS. Fabrication and characterization of transducer elements in two-dimensional arrays for medical ultrasound
imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason, Ferroelect, Freq Control
1992;39(4):464475.
[6] Lovejoy A, Pedrick P, Doran A, Delchar TA, Mills JA, Stamm A. A
novel 8-bit ultrasound phased-array controller for hypertermia applications. Ultrasonics 1995;33(1):000.
[7] Buchana MT, Hynynen K. Design and experimental evaluation of an

198

[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]

L. Azar et al. / NDT&E International 33 (2000) 189198

intracavity ultrasound phased array system for hyperthermia. IEEE
Trans Biomed Engng Design 1983;76(3):275283.
Gerbhardt W. Improvement of ultrasonic testing by phased arrays.
Nucl Engng Design 1983;76(3):275283.
Armitage AD, Scales NR, Hicks PJ, Payne PA, Chen QX, Hatfield JV.
An integrated array transducer receiver for ultrasound imaging. Sens
Actuators A 1995;46/47:542546.
Wooh SC, Shi Y. Three-dimensional directivity of phased steered
ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 1999.
Smith SW, Trahey GE, von Romm OT. Two-dimensional arrays for
medical ultrasound. Ultrasonic Imaging 1992;14:213233.
Crombie P, Bascom P, Cobbold R. Calculating the pulsed response of
linear arrays. IEEE Trans Ultrason, Ferroelect, Freq Control
1997;44(5):9.
Silk MG. Ultrasonic transducers for nondestructive testing. Bristol:
Hilger, 1984.
Wooh SC, Shi Y. In: Thompson DO, Chimenti DE, editors. Optimization of ultrasonic phased arrays review of progress in quantitative
nondestructive evaluation. New York: Plenum Press, 1998. p. 883.
Wooh SC, Shi Y. Influence of phased array element size on beam
steering behavior. Ultrasonics 1998;36:737.

[16] Wooh SC, Shi Y. Optimum beam steering of linear phased arrays.
Wave Motion 1999;29:245265.
[17] Wooh SC, Shi Y. Simulation study of the beam steering characteristics for linear phased arrays. In press.
[18] Shi Y. Modeling of acoustic waves for linear phased arrays. MIT MS
thesis, 1998.
[19] El Amrani M, Evangelakis GA. A numerical model of the acoustic
field produced by phased array transducers. In: Thompson DO,
Chimenti DE, editors. Review of progress in cuantitative nondestructive evaluation, 13. New York: Plenum Press, 1994. pp. 10151022.
[20] Spies M, et al. Design and optimization of a multifunctional phased
array search unit. In: Thompson DO, Chiment DE et al., editors.
Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation, 15.
New York: Plenum Press, 1996. p. 10351042.
[21] Selfridge AR, Kino GS, Khuri-Yakub BT. A theory for the radiation
pattern of a narrow strip acoustic transducer. Appl Phys Lett
1980;37(1):3536.
[22] Clay AC. Development and experimental characterization of ultrasonic phased arrays for nondestructive evaluation. MIT MS thesis, 1998.
[23] Kino GS. Acoustic waves: devices, imaging and analog signal processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.