Issue 
Acta Acust.
Volume 7, 2023



Article Number  41  
Number of page(s)  8  
Section  Ultrasonics  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/aacus/2023037  
Published online  21 August 2023 
Scientific Article
Rayleigh angle incident ultrasonic beam shape design influence on reflected beam
IRL 2958 Georgia Tech – CNRS, Georgia Tech Europe, George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2 rue Marconi, 57070 Metz, France
^{*} Corresponding author: declercq@gatech.edu
Received:
26
April
2023
Accepted:
25
July
2023
Current evolutions in transducer design, such as phased arrays, but more importantly, metamaterialsbased acoustic lenses, potentially enable generating specific beam shapes earlier unconsidered. It is known that the Schoch effect, when a bounded incident beam on a submerged solid reflects at the Rayleigh angle, depends on the beam width and the frequency. This work numerically explores the consequence of the shape of such beams on the Schoch effect and invites further experimental work. The study investigates square shapes and beams with exponential flanks compared to Gaussian reference profiles and incorporates diffraction upon sound propagation to resemble reality better. It is shown that stunning differences occur depending on the beam shape, particularly for square beams.
Key words: Schoch effect / Metamaterials / Rayleigh angle / Beam shape / Fourier method
© The Author(s), Published by EDP Sciences, 2023
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
The research fields of acoustics and optics have developed simultaneously. In particular, acoustics was boosted by advances in optics since the development of the laser; while the interaction of light with sound, acousticoptics, first experimentally proven by Debye and Sears [1], and Lucas and Biquard [2] in 1932, gained momentum in the 1960 s. It’s for instance, at the World exposition of 1958 that the Belgian school of R. Mertens became involved in this field [3–5] after the group of Hiedemann, originating from the group of James Franck, had made significant progress even before the arrival of a practical laser device [6–12].When the acoustic counterpart of the optical Goos–Hänchen effect was searched for, which constituted a forward lateral light beam displacement internally reflected from a dielectric interface [13], it was discovered for sound beams incident from a liquid on a solid, at the Rayleigh angle. The latter is nowadays referred to as the Schoch effect. Later, the phenomenon was equally observed for Lamb angles of the sound incident on thin plates.
The effect of the lateral ultrasonic beam shift was studied by Tamir and Bertoni [14] and later also others, such as Breazeale and Adler [15–17]. It was called the Schoch effect, after the person who was the first to observe it experimentally [18–20]. The phenomenon may also occur in the solid, as is known from experience and was also reported earlier on by Kutzner [21], Filippov [22] and others [23]. More sophisticated materials such as dielectric materials or phononic crystals may also exhibit the effect [24, 25]. The phenomenon is often accompanied by a null strip in between a specular and a nonspecular reflected beam. The expression “null strip” was first mentioned in Neubauer and Dragonet [26].
Figure 1 shows a typical Schlieren set up as we use to experimentally illustrate the Schoch effect as in Figure 2. Light passes from a laser source, through a sound field, to a projection screen only if it is not blocked by a spatial filter, which is only possible if it is diffracted by sound. Therefore, Schlieren photography enables visualization of sound.
Figure 1 Schematic of a Schlieren set up. Coherent light passes from right to left: HeNe laser source; microscopy lens to focus light onto a pinhole; metal disk with transparent pinhole; converging lens to make light parallel; water tank in which the sample (yellow) is placed and is impinged by ultrasound (blue arrow); lens to converge light to a spatial filter (e.g. a black ink spot on a transparent glass plate, which blocks undiffracted light); projection screen on which the sound beam (blue arrow, formed by diffracted light not blocked by the spatial filter) becomes visible and can be photographed. 
Figure 2 Example of a Schlieren image, taken using a HeNe laser, of a bounded beam incident (from the top left) onto a thin Aluminum plate. In this example, the Schoch effect with nullstrip is caused by a leaky Lamb wave and is visible in reflection. In transmission, the effect is equally visible, though without nullstrip. A similar effect occurs for thick plates at the Rayleigh angle. 
Figure 2 shows the Schoch effect for a bounded beam incident on a thin aluminum plate at a Lamb angle and illustrates the effect as it occurs in experiments. For thick plates, the same phenomenon is visible at the Rayleigh angle. The author made the image, using Schlieren photography, essentially based on the acoustooptic effect [27], as illustrated in Figure 1.
A crossfertilization between optics and acoustics in more recent times is found in the similarity between photonic crystals and phononic crystals or metamaterials in general. Recent advances in metamaterials [28–38] offer novel possibilities in transducer design, beam forming, and beam focusing. Provided with a new range of design possibilities, potential interest transpires in ultrasonic nondestructive testing and the occurrence of a guided waverelated beam effect, such as the Schoch effect, under unorthodox shapes of incident beams.
In what follows, particular beam shapes are investigated, and the effect of their shape on the Schoch effect is simulated and discussed.
2 Studied beams and material properties
Plane waves incident from a liquid on a solid generate reflected and transmitted waves that obey Snell’s law and allow the determination of angles of incidence causing guided waves, such as leaky Rayleigh waves on a thick solid or leaky Lamb waves in a thin solid plate. The leakage field from the guided wave into the liquid interacts with specularly reflected sound, causing interference in space and time. When incident sound is not a plane wave but a bounded beam, the interference pattern sometimes consists of the appearance of a resultant reflected sound field exposing a beam shift and sometimes even the appearance of two reflected beams with a null zone inbetween. Studies usually consider incident Gaussian beams. However, it may be interesting to investigate other beam shapes numerically before experimenting in the framework of the recent development of metamaterialbased acoustic lenses. The reflected beam effects can be applied to reshape beams for particular applications or to change the efficiency with which incident sound is transformed into guided waves.
The study applies bounded harmonic beams and does not consider pulses. Viscous damping effects or nonlinearity are also not considered. As shown earlier, when averaged over time, pulses do not change Schoch effect characteristics on thick plates but prevent a Schoch effect on thin plates, which is not the scope of this work [39]. Here we do not study the appearance or absence of the effect but the beam shape’s influence. For a sound beam ψ(x, z, t), with spatial profile ϕ(x, z), we consider three cases for ϕ(x, z), namely a Gaussian beam G(x, z), a beam C(x, z) with exponential flanks as the roof of a Japanese temple, and a square beam P(x, z). A parameter W is used for the Gaussian beam width. A parameter β is used for the exponential behavior in the shape of the beam C. Finally, a parameter B is used to determine the width of the square profile.
In particular, a Gaussian beam G(x, z) is characterized by its profile at z = 0 as,
A beam C(x, z) has the shape of the roof of a Japanese temple, hence the expression Japanese temple beam further in this work,
Finally, a square beam P(x, z) is defined as,
To compare the different beams with one another, we demand that they possess the same amount of energy,
For a chosen value β, we determine the value for W and B as follows,
Apart from the profile, modelling should also account for the acoustic beam formation based on a plane wave expansion rooted in Fourier analysis. A harmonic sound field in space–time is described as,
in which H_{n} is the nth Fourier coefficient obtained by FFT of ϕ(x, z) for the corresponding wave number k_{x,n}. Formula (7) takes into account the dispersion formula for nonviscous materials, to find k_{z,n} for a frequency f, with,
Beams are incident from water with a density of 1000 kg/m^{3} and sound velocity of 1480 m/s. As a representative example for experiments, we take a frequency of 1 MHz. The beams interact with a solid, having properties representative for brass, i.e. density 8100 kg/m^{3}, ultrasound shear velocity 2270 m/s and ultrasound longitudinal velocity 4840 m/s.
Fourier analysis is done by FFT on 977 equidistant samples between −20 W and +20 W, although the results are plotted only in the interval −4 W to +4 W and sometimes −W to +W as seen subsequently.
The Fourier transform provides amplitude and phase of each plane wave that constitute the modelled bounded beam, having a wave vector k_{x,n} along the profile axis (i.e. the surface of the transducer) determined by Fourier analysis, and a perpendicular wave vector component k_{z,n}, physically determined by the dispersion equation for harmonic plane waves, as applied in Formula (7) using Formula (8). Adding up all the calculated plane waves as in Formula (7) results in the bounded beam.
Interaction of a bounded beam incident from water on an elastic solid is modeled by a linear combination of reflected plane waves each resulting from their respective incident plane waves in Formula (7), by assuming continuity of normal stress and normal displacement at the liquid–solid interface.
This study aims not to show Fourier analysis compared to competing methods such as a phase advance technique [40], but to reveal the influence of the beam shape.
3 Fourier effect
As explained in Section 2, we use the Fourier transform to model bounded beams. The advantage is that each involved plane wave is easily understood and allows one to simulate how it reflects off a solid by taking into account Snell’s law and calculating the reflection and transmission coefficients for each wave. The technique may have one side effect of importance in the Schoch effect context, which we prefer to exclude by evidence before we continue, rather than ignore a priori.
3.1 The difference between backward radiation and backscattering
The model used in this work does not consider material inhomogeneities or surface roughness and does not consider any possible secondary diffraction effects on surface roughness caused by guided waves. Investigators like Nagy and Adler [41, 42] or Blakemore [43] provided experimental and theoretical explanations in which a clear distinction between backward radiation, caused by Fourier, as described in Section 3.2, and backscattering, caused by the material’s inhomogeneities and surface roughness is important. Backscattering is, for instance, enhanced when sound is incident at the Rayleigh angle. Nagy and Adler [41, 42] clearly showed that this enhanced effect is solely caused by backscattering. In other words, minute backward radiation as in Section 3.2 exists, but is negligible compared to backscattering. Furthermore, the backscattering effect (not considered in the current work) produces an amplitude peak, in experiments, in the reflection of sound at the Rayleigh angle on the surface and is directed back to the transducer in a pulseecho experiment.
3.2 Fourier effect causing backward radiation
The effect described here is not responsible for the observed high amplitude in the received echo at the Rayleigh angle during a pulseecho experiment, as observed by Nagy and Adler [41, 42]. The Fourier effect is a minute backward radiation that exists for all angles of beam incidence and is caused by backward plane wave components in a bounded beam. For instance, if the incident beam is an outward spherical wave, the sound is always reflected to the transducer. If the beam is spherically focused, the sound will always be reflected, no matter what the angle of incidence. What these extremes have in common is a wide angular spectrum, consistent with the theoretical work of Norris [44] and others [45, 46]. A little fraction is reflected back for beams categorized between these two extremes.
Indeed, a proper Fouriertransform application to bounded beams requires, for symmetry reasons, the usage of forward and backward directed wave vector components along the transducer’s surface, i.e. positive and negative values of k_{x,n}. In what follows, it is useful to keep an experiment as in Figure 2 in mind. For normal incident beams, half of the assumed plane wave bends towards the lefthand side and the other half towards the righthand side. If such a beam is tilted to emit sound from top left to right bottom, more components will be directed to the right than the left. Still, some waves are directed to the left, and this means that, after reflection with a surface, basic geometry shows that a portion can bounce back to the emitter. The attribution of this small effect to a Fourier effect was made by Norris [47]. Important in the current study is that these waves may interfere with the other sound waves and influence the Schoch effect. However, the effect for regular beams is not as highly sensitive to whether the beam is incident at the Rayleigh angle as the backscattering effect studied by Nagy and Adler [41, 42]. When a beam has sharp edges, such as a square beam, backward radiation also prominently manifests because the sharp edge causes a wider angular spectrum than a smooth edge as with a Gaussian beam. For the same reason, a square beam will spread more prominently than a Gaussian beam while propagating, known as edge diffraction.
For demonstrative purposes, we apply the numerical technique described in Section 2, to 1 MHz sound incident from water on brass at the Rayleigh angle (44.04°). The material parameters are given in Section 2. The Gaussian beam width for this simulation is W = 0.002 m. The result is seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Numerical simulation of a bounded beam, incident from the top left of the figure, interacting with a thick brass sample, at the Rayleigh angle and for W = 0.002 m. The resulting sound field is caused by the interference of incident sound and reflected sound. The reflected sound consists of specular and nonspecular sound, causing the Schoch effect. 
Separation of the sound field of Figure 3 to examine every possible contribution results in the observation that, for this case, the amplitude of the Fourier effect contribution to backward radiated sound is one millionth of the entire sound field. In other words, it shows, as Nagy and Adler [41, 42] have proven, that the Fourier effect is not the explanation for enhanced backscattering at the Rayleigh angle. Indeed, the Fourier effect is negligible, also in the discourse presented here.
4 Shape effect study
To compare the Schoch effect for different profiles, we present results for a small variety of β values, as defined in Formula (5), frequencies and for two distances: zero and W. Although the zero distance is classically used to study reflected beam profiles, it is physically problematic because a zero distance is only achieved for the center of the beam, while one portion has already emerged, and another is still emerging and therefore does not yet exist. A distance of W, or any other distance sufficiently far from the origin, is physically more straightforward because it ensures that the whole profile has emerged and propagates as reflected sound away from the solid. Note that the zerodistance result is usually smooth because propagation has not yet occurred, and hence there are no phase effects or edge diffraction observable caused by propagation. Both cases are essential to avoid false conclusions. Figures 4–10 expose the obtained results. The incident beam profile as in Formulas (1)–(3) are shown as colored dotted lines, serving as references and the reflected profiles in solid lines with the same colors. Only the Rayleigh angle results are shown because this is the only angle around which the Schoch effect is visible. From the shown results, it can be seen that the Schoch effect also appears from the other two profiles and is therefore not a typical Gauss effect. However, the extent and characteristics depend on the considered profile. Only for the first case do we present the real values to show the beam behavior in the real physical world. For the other cases, we only present absolute values as done traditionally.
Figure 4 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 7 shows that the smoothness of the result is caused by ignoring propagation. 
4.1 Case study for 1 MHz and β = 100/m
Figure 4 shows results for the three profiles defined in the Formulas (1)–(3), at 1 MHz, for the sound incident at the Rayleigh angle, and characterized by β = 100/m, defined in Formula (5). Propagation after reflection is not taken into account, i.e., the profile represents the calculated profile at the origin, as is traditionally done. For the Gaussian beam (black curve), the reflected beam exposes the wellknown Schoch effect, similar to that of Figure 2 or Figure 3 beautifully. When we look at the other profiles under the same circumstances a Schoch effect is still visible but different. The Japanese temple beam behaves similar to the Gaussian beam, likely due to Gaussian flanks’ similarities with exponential flanks [48]. The square beam gives more striking results, however. Indeed, sharp peaks are seen, which, in an experiment, would show up as two narrow beams with a large zone in between consisting of low amplitude sound.
It is known that the null zone appearing with the Schoch effect is caused by destructive interference between specular and nonspecular sound in the counter phase. This is seen in Figure 5 for each studied profile. Again, the square beam (blue) exposes the most spectacular results with significant separation between the specular lobe (left) and the nonspecular one (right).
Figure 5 Real value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Propagation further influences these results, as shown in Figure 6. 
As mentioned, Figures 4 and 5 show reflected profiles at the origin. When sound is reflected on the surface and propagates away from the interface, phase influences can be expected and natural diffraction such as edge diffraction. The latter typically smoothens sharp profile peaks. Indeed, Figure 6 results in the same conclusions as to the previous figure, except that some irregularities due to phase effects are visible. The sharp peaks of the reflected square beam (blue) are somewhat smoothened. Nevertheless, they are still relatively sharp, meaning that, in an actual experiment, the emerging narrow beams would only gently widen with distance.
Figure 6 Real value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. The effect caused by propagation make the results rougher than the ones in Figure 5, where propagation is absent. 
For consistency with the explanation at zero distance in Figure 5, the real values are shown in Figure 7. The conclusions are still valid.
Figure 7 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. Effects caused by propagation distinguish these results from the ones in Figure 4, where propagation is absent. 
4.2 Case study for 1 MHz and β = 600/m
As mentioned earlier, we always compare beams based on the β value, ensuring all beams have the same energy. Whereas in the previous Section 4.1, values of 100 were taken, we now look at the results for β = 600/m while using the same frequency. From a relative viewpoint, the beams are now much narrower than in the previous case. Still, the Schoch effect is visible for all beams, though different. There is now a weak and narrow null zone, while the nonspecular beam is farreaching. Every profile behaves somewhat similar, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 600/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 4 shows that the higher value for β is mainly causing different effects for the nonGaussian beams. 
4.3 Case study for 1 MHz and β = 300/m
Less extreme than the previous case is when β is in between the values in case A and case B. Here, we take β = 300/m and the result is given in Figure 9. The conclusions are equally in between the two aforementioned extreme cases. Again, the square shape gives the most dramatic results, though less spectacular as in the first case. In other words, the wider the beam, the more striking the Schoch effect for square beams.
Figure 9 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 300/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figures 4 and 8 reveals that the obtained results fall between those for β = 100/m and β = 600/m. 
4.4 Case study for 5 MHz and β = 100/m
When the frequency is changed, the relative beamwidth is also different. If we repeat the calculations of cases A, B and C, for a higher frequency, then the narrow beams will behave as wider beams. We first have a look at case A, but now for a 5 MHz frequency, shown in Figure 10. As known from experience, the Schoch effect is hardly visible for the Gaussian beam. More interestingly is that the square profile exposes spectacular behavior again by exposing two sharp amplitude peaks left and right.
Figure 10 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 5 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 4 reveals an influence on the Shoch effect, caused by the frequency, for each of the studied profiles. 
As in the previous cases, we expect that the observed sharp peaks occurring after reflection of the square beam smoothen with propagation. Figure 11 shows the result of Figure 10 after a propagation distance W. Indeed, the sharp peaks smoothen somewhat but are still there.
Figure 11 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 5 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. As with the 1 MHz results of Figure 7, compared to Figure 4, influence cause by propagation is also observed in this case of 5 MHz. 
5 Conclusions
Numerical simulations based on Fourier theory show that square beams exhibit a much stronger Schoch effect upon reflection from a solid than other, smoother profiles such as Gaussian beams. The study incorporates sound propagation to account for edge diffraction and reveals that the conclusions remain pertinent.
A suggestion for the further experimental study could be to investigate if wide square beams are also more efficient in Rayleigh wave generation than wide Gaussian beams because the Schoch effect physically accompanies Rayleigh wave generation. Additionally, the superior flexibility caused by today’s progress in metamaterials for fabricating acoustic lenses may open new opportunities for experimentation with more exotic beam shapes than the ones reported in this work. An outspoken Schoch effect may contribute to the spatial filtering of sound beams or produce peculiar Rayleigh waves, possibly at a higher efficiency than traditional Gaussian beams.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
References
 P. Debye, F.W. Sears: On the scattering of light by supersonic waves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 18, 6 (1932) 409–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 R. Lucas, P. Biquard: Optical properties of solid and liquid medias subjected to highfrequency elastic vibrations. Journal de Physique 71 (1932) 464–477. [Google Scholar]
 R. Mertens: On the theory of the diffraction of light by 2 parallel ultrasonic waves, one being the nth harmonic of the other. Zeitschrift fur Physik 160, 3 (1960) 291–296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 L.E. Hargrove, R. Mertens, E.A. Hiedemann: Diffraction of light by 2 spatially separated parallel ultrasonic waves of different frequency. Zeitschrift fur Physik 167, 3 (1962) 326. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O. Leroy, R. Mertens: Diffraction of light by adjacent parallel ultrasonicwaves with arbitrary frequencies (NOAmethod). Acustica 26, 2 (1972) 96. [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: Simple way to observe optical diffraction patterns produced by shear waves. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27, 6 (1955) 1220–1221. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, B.D. Cook, E.A. Hiedemann: Determination of the form of finite amplitude ultrasonic waves by light refraction. Naturwissenschaften 45, 22 (1958) 537. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: The refraction of light by progressive ultrasonic waves of finite amplitude. Naturwissenschaften 45, 7 (1958) 157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: Investigation of progressive ultrasonic waves by light refraction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 30, 8 (1958) 751–756. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: Optical methods for the measurement of the sound pressure in liquids. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31, 1 (1959) 24–28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: Investigation of progressive ultrasonic waves by light refraction. Naturwissenschaften 47, 10 (1960) 222. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, E.A. Hiedemann: Diffraction patterns produced by finite amplitude waves. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33, 5 (1961) 700. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 V.F. Goos, H. Hänchen: Ein neuer und fundamentaler versuch zur totalreflexion. Annalen der Physik 6, 1 (1947) 333–364. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 T. Tamir, H.L. Bertoni: Lateral displacement of optical beams at multilayered and periodic structures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61 (1971) 1397–1413. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, L. Adler, G.W. Scott: Interaction of ultrasonicwaves incident at Rayleigh angle onto a liquidsolid interface. Journal of Applied Physics 48, 2 (1977) 530–537. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale, L. Adler, J.H. Smith: Energy redistribution of a Gaussian ultrasonic beam reflected from liquidsolid interface. Soviet Physics AcousticsUSSR 21, 1 (1975) 1–6. [Google Scholar]
 L. Adler, M.A. Breazeale, G.W. Scott: Another look at problem of energy redistribution of a Gaussian ultrasonic beam at a liquidsolid interface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 57 (1975) S38–S39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Schoch: Der Durchgang von Ultraschall durch Platten. Nuovo Cimento 7, Suppl. 2 (1950) 302. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Schoch: Der Schalldurchgang durch plate. Acustica 2 (1952) 1–17. [Google Scholar]
 A. Schoch: Seitliche Versetzung eines totalreflektierten Strahls bei Ultraschallwellen. Acustica 2 (1952) 18–19. [Google Scholar]
 J. Kutzner: On the beam displacement of an ultrasonic transversewave reflected at a freeboundary surface. Acustica 45, 1 (1980) 25–29. [Google Scholar]
 V.V. Filippov: Displacement of acoustic beams reflected at the free solid boundary. Doklady Akademii Nauk Belarusi 26, 6 (1982) 511–512. [Google Scholar]
 V.I. Alshitz, A.N. Darinskii, R.K. Kotovski, A.L. Shuvalov: Schoch effect analog during the reflection of acoustic beams from the freeboundary of a crystal. Kristallografiya 33, 3 (1988) 541–553. [Google Scholar]
 T.V. Lapteva, S.V. Tarasenko, V.G. Shavrov: New mechanism of the Schoch effect in nonmagnetic dielectrics. JETP Letters 85, 12 (2007) 617–621. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Z.W. Chen, Y.W. Yao, F.G. Wu, X. Zhang, H.F. Dong, S.F. Lu, L.X. Han: The Schoch effect mechanism analysis and its regulation of two dimensional three components phononic crystal. Scientia SinicaPhysica Mechanica & Astronomica 47, 6 (2017) 064301. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 W.G. Neubauer, L.R. Dragonet: Measurement of Rayleigh phase velocity and estimates of shear speed by Schlieren visualization. Journal of Applied Physics 45, 2 (1974) 618–622. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M.A. Breazeale: From monochromatic light diffraction to colour Schlieren photography. Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics 3 (2001) S1–S7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Ma, H. Chen, Z. Wu, X. Hao, G. Yan, W. Li, L. Shao, G. Meng, W. Zhang: A waveconfining metasphere beamforming acoustic sensor for superior humanmachine voice interaction. Science Advances 8, 39 (2022) eadc9230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 K. Song, J.H. Kwak, J.J. Park, S. Hur, M. AnzanUzZaman, J. Kim: Acoustic beam forming based on a surface with sinusoidally modulated admittance. Physical Review Applied 10 (2018) 044025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 L. Zhao, E. Laredo, O. Ryan, A. Yazdkhasti, H.T. Kim, R. Ganye, T. Horiuchi, M. Yu: Ultrasound beam steering with flattened acoustic metamaterial Luneburg lens. Applied Physics Letters 116, 7 (2020) 071902. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 C.T. Michael Wu, P.Y. Chen: LowProfile MetamaterialBased Adaptative Beamforming Techniques, in Modern PrintedCircuit Antennas, Hussain AlRizzo, Editor. Rijeka, 2020. [Google Scholar]
 H. Zhu, F. Semperlotti, A passively tunable acoustic metamaterial lens for selective ultrasonic excitation, Journal of Applied Physics 1169 (2014) 094901–094901.5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Guenneau, A. Movchan, G. Pétursson, S. Anantha Ramakrishna: Acoustic metamaterials for sound focusing and confinement, New Journal of Physics 9 (2007) 399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 F. Ma, Z. Huang, C. Liu, J. H. Wu: Acoustic focusing and imaging via phononic crystal and acoustic metamaterials. Journal of Applied Physics 131, 1 (2022) 011103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 G. Song, B. Huang, H. Dong: Broadband focusing acoustic lens based on fractal metamaterials, Scientific Reports 6 (2016) 35929. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 S.C. Steven Lin, B.R. Tittmann, T.J. Huang: Design of acoustic beam aperture modifier using gradientindex phononic crystals. Journal of Applied Physics 111, 12 (2012) 123510. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 L. Zhao: Acoustic metamaterial beam splitter. Cornell University, arXiv:2303.16370, 2023. [Google Scholar]
 M. Ambati, N. Fang, C. Sun, X. Zhang: Surface resonant states and superlensing in acoustic metamaterials. Physical Review B (Condensed Matter and Materials Physics) 75, 19 (2007) 195447. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 N.F. Declercq: Fast beating null strip during the reflection of pulsed Gaussian beams incident at the Rayleigh angle. Ultrasonics 44, 1 (2006) E1447–E1451. [Google Scholar]
 Y. Bouzidi, D.R. Schmitt: Quantitative modeling of reflected ultrasonic bounded beams and a new estimate of the Schoch shift. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control 55, 12 (2008) 2661–2673. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 P.B. Nagy, L. Adler: On the origin of increased backward radiation from a liquidsolid interface at the Rayleigh angle. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85 (1989) 1355–1357. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P.B. Nagy, L. Adler: Increased incoherent backscattering from a liquidsolid interface at the Rayeigh angle. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96 (1994) 2537–2545. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Blakemore: Scattering of acoustic waves by the rough surface of an elastic solid. Ultrasonics 31, 3 (1993) 161–174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.N. Norris: “The influence of beam type on the back reflection of ultrasonic beams from a liquidsolid interface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76 (1984) 629–631. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Pott, J.G. Harris: Scattering of an acoustic Gaussianbeam from a fluid solid interface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76, 6 (1984) 1829–1838. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J.J. Stamnes: Role of backward waves in backscattering of ultrasonic beams at a liquid solid interface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76, 2 (1984) 627–629. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.N. Norris: Back reflection of ultrasonicwaves from a liquid solid interface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73, 2 (1983) 427–434. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 N.F. Declercq: Experimental study of ultrasonic beam sectors for energy conversion into Lamb waves and Rayleigh waves. Ultrasonics 54, 2 (2013) 609–613. [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Declercq NF. 2023. Rayleigh angle incident ultrasonic beam shape design influence on reflected beam. Acta Acustica, 7, 41.
All Figures
Figure 1 Schematic of a Schlieren set up. Coherent light passes from right to left: HeNe laser source; microscopy lens to focus light onto a pinhole; metal disk with transparent pinhole; converging lens to make light parallel; water tank in which the sample (yellow) is placed and is impinged by ultrasound (blue arrow); lens to converge light to a spatial filter (e.g. a black ink spot on a transparent glass plate, which blocks undiffracted light); projection screen on which the sound beam (blue arrow, formed by diffracted light not blocked by the spatial filter) becomes visible and can be photographed. 

In the text 
Figure 2 Example of a Schlieren image, taken using a HeNe laser, of a bounded beam incident (from the top left) onto a thin Aluminum plate. In this example, the Schoch effect with nullstrip is caused by a leaky Lamb wave and is visible in reflection. In transmission, the effect is equally visible, though without nullstrip. A similar effect occurs for thick plates at the Rayleigh angle. 

In the text 
Figure 3 Numerical simulation of a bounded beam, incident from the top left of the figure, interacting with a thick brass sample, at the Rayleigh angle and for W = 0.002 m. The resulting sound field is caused by the interference of incident sound and reflected sound. The reflected sound consists of specular and nonspecular sound, causing the Schoch effect. 

In the text 
Figure 4 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 7 shows that the smoothness of the result is caused by ignoring propagation. 

In the text 
Figure 5 Real value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Propagation further influences these results, as shown in Figure 6. 

In the text 
Figure 6 Real value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. The effect caused by propagation make the results rougher than the ones in Figure 5, where propagation is absent. 

In the text 
Figure 7 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. Effects caused by propagation distinguish these results from the ones in Figure 4, where propagation is absent. 

In the text 
Figure 8 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 600/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 4 shows that the higher value for β is mainly causing different effects for the nonGaussian beams. 

In the text 
Figure 9 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 1 MHz, β = 300/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figures 4 and 8 reveals that the obtained results fall between those for β = 100/m and β = 600/m. 

In the text 
Figure 10 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 5 MHz, β = 100/m after 0 m propagation distance. Comparison with Figure 4 reveals an influence on the Shoch effect, caused by the frequency, for each of the studied profiles. 

In the text 
Figure 11 Absolute value of the incident (dotted lines) and reflected profiles (solid lines) at the Rayleigh angle, for 5 MHz, β = 100/m after W propagation distance. As with the 1 MHz results of Figure 7, compared to Figure 4, influence cause by propagation is also observed in this case of 5 MHz. 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.