Calculating the mechanical index of applied ultrasound

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculation of the Mechanical Index (MI) using the formula MI = P_ra / √f, where pressure is affected by an attenuation factor dependent on depth and frequency. A specific example involving a 4 MHz pulse at 6 cm depth and 2 MPa pressure is analyzed, leading to confusion regarding the calculation of MI, particularly the value of 0.44. It is clarified that the normalization factor is often omitted in some papers, but it is essential for accurate unit representation. The attenuation is explained as affecting intensity, which is proportional to the square of acoustic pressure, ultimately leading to the correct MI calculation. The participant acknowledges the resolution of their calculation error, highlighting the importance of understanding the normalization factor.
rwooduk
Messages
757
Reaction score
59
On the surface, the equation is simply the peak rarefractional pressure divided by the root of the applied frequency:

##MI = \frac{P_{ra}}{\sqrt{f}}##

But the pressure is reduced/derated by an attenuation factor/coefficient that is dependent on depth and frequency e.g. ##0.3 \ dB / (cm \cdot MHz)##

An example calculation is given in the paper "Tutorial paper: thermal and mechanical indices". Where it takes a 4 MHz pulse, at 6cm, 2 Mpa, ##0.3 \ dB / (cm \cdot MHz)## and says the MI would be (2*0.44)/SQRT(4) = 0.44. I can't get the 0.44 because the dimensional analysis with units doesn't seem right.

##MI = \frac{MPa}{\sqrt{MHz}}\cdot \frac{dB}{cm\cdot MHz}##

I can easily calculate the attenuation, which is simply the attenuation coefficient multiplied by distance and frequency. Which for his example is 7.2 dB, I can also calculate intensity from this from I = I * 10^(-dB/10), but still don't get the 0.44.

Am I overcomplicating things?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jim mcnamara said:
This is probably some help - note their approach seems a little different from yours-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5336845/
Thanks, I did see that paper but it seems they do not factor in the attenuation due to tissue / depth at all. I should have probably put this in the physics sections above as I think I'm having a calculation problem, rather than a definition problem. But I really appreciate the reply, thanks.
[Thread moved from the Medical forum to the Physics forums by a Mentor]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a normalization factor in the formula. If the factor is written in the denominator the units are ##\frac{MPa}{MHz^{1/2}}##. The formula I use is ##MI=\frac{p_{r.03}}{C_{MI}\sqrt{f}}## where ##C_{MI}## is this normalization constant. This is concerning the units.
For the value, the attenuation refers to the intensity. The intensity is proportional to the square of the acoustic pressure. So you have ##10 log(I_1/I_2)= 7.2 dB ## and ## 20 log(p_1/p_2)= 7.2 dB## so the pressure at 6 cm is derated to ##\frac{2 Mpa}{10^{0.36}} ## which is about 0.87 MPa. Divide this by ##\sqrt{4}## and you get about 0.44.

Edit.
In some papers they don't put the normaliation factor in the formula but it is assumed to be there.
It does not change the values.
 
Last edited:
nasu said:
There is a normalization factor in the formula. If the factor is written in the denominator the units are ##\frac{MPa}{MHz^{1/2}}##. The formula I use is ##MI=\frac{p_{r.03}}{C_{MI}\sqrt{f}}## where ##C_{MI}## is this normalization constant. This is concerning the units.
For the value, the attenuation refers to the intensity. The intensity is proportional to the square of the acoustic pressure. So you have ##10 log(I_1/I_2)= 7.2 dB ## and ## 20 log(p_1/p_2)= 7.2 dB## so the pressure at 6 cm is derated to ##\frac{2 Mpa}{10^{0.36}} ## which is about 0.87 MPa. Divide this by ##\sqrt{4}## and you get about 0.44.

Edit.
In some papers they don't put the normaliation factor in the formula but it is assumed to be there.
It does not change the values.

Thank you very much nasu, I had completely messed up my calculation. Extremely helpful!
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top