Ultrasound in Med. & Biol., Vol. 26, No. 8, pp.

1347–1355, 2000
Copyright © 2000 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0301-5629/00/$–see front matter

PII: S0301-5629(00)00294-5

● Original Contribution

COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT AND HEATED DISC MODELS OF

TISSUE HEATING BY ULTRASOUND

CLAIRE DOODY,* FRANCIS A. DUCK† and VICTOR F. HUMPHREY‡

*School of Design, Engineering and Computing, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK; †Department of Medical
Physics, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK; and ‡Department of Physics, University of Bath, Bath, UK

(Received 23 July 1999; in final form 20 July 2000)

Abstract—This paper compares different techniques used to model the heating caused by ultrasound (US) in a
phantom containing a layer of bone mimic covered by agar gel. Results from finite element (FE) models are
compared with those from two techniques based on the point-source solution to the bioheat transfer equation
(BHTE): one in which the bone mimic is considered to be an absorbing disc of infinitesimal thickness and the
other in which the region through which the US travels is considered to be a volume heat source. The FE results
are also compared with experimental measurements. The results from the models differed by up to 40%
compared with those from the FE model. Furthermore, for the intensity distribution considered, which corre-
sponds to that in the focal zone of a single-element transducer, the top hat distribution predicts a temperature
rise 1.8 times greater than that for a more realistic one based on measured values. © 2000 World Federation
for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

Key Words: Diagnostic ultrasound, Tissue heating, Bone, Numerical modelling, Pulsed Doppler ultrasound,
Bioeffects, Safety.

INTRODUCTION a disc of infinitesimal thickness that absorbs a set pro-

There is evidence that some diagnostic ultrasound (US)
equipment, when operating in pulsed Doppler mode, has
the potential to produce a biologically significant tem-
perature rise (Barnett 2000; ter Haar 1996; WFUMB
1998). Computer models that estimate the temperature
rise in tissue have been produced by a number of groups;
many of these, for example, Carstensen et al. (1990);
Shaw (1994); Shaw et al. (1998) and Jago et al. (1999),
make use of the point source solution to the bioheat
transfer equation (BHTE) (Nyborg 1988). Although this
approach allows solutions to be obtained for a range of
exposure conditions, it does have limitations, such as the
inability to include more than one set of thermal param-
eters, such as thermal conductivity, within the model.
This makes it necessary to employ simplifying assump-
tions if this technique is to be used for layered structures
such as bone underlying soft tissue.
One approach used by groups such as Carstensen et
al. (1990) and Jago et al. (1999) considers the bone to be
Address correspondence to: Claire Doody, School of Design,
Engineering and Computing, Bournemouth University, Talbot Cam-
pus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB UK. E-mail: cdoody@
bournemouth.ac.uk
portion of the incident energy. The disc is surrounded by
an infinite region with homogenous thermal properties
and it is only these thermal properties that are included in
the model. The heating is calculated by performing a
surface integral over the area of the disc heated by the US
beam. It is this approach that underlies some of the
thermal index calculations formulated in the output dis-
play standard (AIUM/NEMA 1992). Thermal indices are
now displayed on virtually all recent scanners and are
used for risk assessment. It is important, therefore, that
any weaknesses in the techniques used to calculate them
are understood.
An alternative approach adopted by Shaw (1994)
and Shaw et al. (1998) assumes that the US is transmitted
into the bone and is absorbed as it passes through this
layer at a rate dependent on the absorption coefficient.
This gives an extended heat source, the effects of which
are calculated by performing a volume integration. It is
necessary, however, because of the nature of the point
source solution to the BHTE, to use a single value for the
thermal properties throughout the model, in spite of the
fact that there are two distinct layers: soft tissue and bone.
Finite element modelling (FEM) is a numerical
technique that produces approximate solutions to differ-

1347
1348 Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Volume 26, Number 8, 2000

ential equations. FE models can use the correct thermal

properties in each layer and can model a variety of
boundary conditions, including convection. This tech-
nique has been used previously to study tissue heating
caused by a variety of mechanisms, including micro-
waves (Clegg et al. 1994; Wong et al. 1988) and laser
irradiation (Glenn et al. 1996), as well as US (Kagawa et
al. 1986). The software package used in this study,
ANSYS, was used by Chatterjee and Adams (1994) to
model microwave hyperthermia treatment.
This study explored the limitations of using the
point source solution to the BHTE to model layered
structures in which there are significant differences be-
tween the thermal properties of the layers. The structure
considered consists of layers of soft tissue and bone
mimic. Results from the two approaches based on the
point source solution to the BHTE (i.e., carrying out the Fig. 1. Schematic of equipment.
integration over a disc and a volume) are compared with
those obtained using FEM and with experimental obser-
vations. This paper also explores the difference between
very close to those of water and, hence, was a reasonable
the temperature rise calculated for a measured intensity
thermal mimic for soft tissue. Duck (1990) gives the
distribution and those calculated by assuming a simpler
thermal conductivity of 1.5% agar gel as 0.609 W m⫺1
distribution.
K⫺1 and the specific heat as 4289 J kg⫺1 K⫺1. The agar
gel was minimally attenuating; Bouakkaz et al. (1994)
METHODS determined the properties of 3% to 4% gel and found the
attenuation coefficient at 20°C to be 2.5 ⫻ 10⫺3 Np m⫺1
For the purposes of this comparative study, it was
MHz⫺1 and the acoustic impedance to be 1.497 ⫻ 106 kg
decided to model a system for which experimental re-
m⫺2 s⫺1. These figures predict an insertion loss of less
sults are available; these results could then be used for
than 1%. The gel used here contained only 1.5% agar
validation. The phantom consisted of two layers; a
and, so, is likely to have properties closer to those of
13-mm thick layer of 1.5% (weight/volume) agar gel and
water, making 1% an upper limit for the insertion loss.
a 5-mm thick disc of bone mimic, each 50 mm in
The phantom was insonated using a single-element
diameter. These were contained within a section of PVC
weakly focused 3.5-MHz transducer situated at 80 mm
pipe to provide strength. A 50-␮m diameter K type
from the surface of the bone mimic. The intensity dis-
thermocouple was positioned between the agar and bone
tribution of the US beam at this distance, shown in Fig.
mimic. The phantom was placed in water, with the front
2, was measured using the NPL US beam calibrator
of the bone mimic being 80 mm from the transducer face,
(Preston 1988) with a PVDF hydrophone array of ele-
as illustrated in Fig. 1. The bone mimic, which had been
ment diameter 0.5-mm and 1-mm element spacing. To
evaluated by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL)
increase the spatial resolution of the data, two sets of
(Pay et al. 1998), consisted of PTFE filled with 60-␮m
readings were taken with the hydrophone being trans-
diameter glass fibres to a concentration of 25%. The
lated 0.5 mm between each set. The characteristics of the
properties of this material, as characterised by NPL, are
beam at 80 mm from the transducer face are shown in
shown in Table 1. The uncertainties quoted are the limits
Table 2; the uncertainties were calculated using data
of the 95% confidence interval, except for the specific
given by Preston (1988). The power output from the
heat and thermal diffusivity values. The specific heat
varies considerably over the temperature range of inter-
est and the uncertainty figure quoted is a measure of this
Table 1. Properties of glass-filled PTFE bone mimic
variability, rather than the measurement uncertainty. The
value is quoted at 21 ⫾ 2.5°C because this range includes Ultrasound propagation speed 1400 ⫾ 20 m s⫺1
all the temperatures at which the measurements were Attenuation coefficient at 3.9 ⫾ 0.5 Np cm⫺1
3.5 MHz
carried out (including the temperature of the PTFE when Density 2200 kg m⫺3
heated). The thermal diffusivity was calculated using the Thermal conductivity at 20°C 0.33 ⫾ 0.02 W m⫺1 K⫺1
value of the specific heat and is, therefore, also subject to Specific heat at 21 ⫾ 2.5°C 1600 ⫾ 500 J kg⫺1 K⫺1
Thermal diffusivity at 20°C (0.9 ⫾ 0.3) ⫻ 10⫺7 m2 s⫺1
a large uncertainty. The agar gel had thermal properties
 Numerical modelling of tissue heating ● C. DOODY et al.
Fig. 2. Beam profile at 80 mm from transducer; x ⫽ measured
values, solid line ⫽ cubic spline fit.
transducer, measured with a power balance (Perkins
1989) was 50 ⫾ 2 mW. The phantom possessed axial
symmetry and orthogonal measurements of the US in-
tensity distribution showed that this was also a reason-
able simplification for the beam (the difference in the ⫺6
dB diameter was less than 0.2 mm). This feature was
incorporated into the FE model by defining the system in
2-D and then applying axial symmetry. This reduced the
computer resources required considerably compared to a
full 3-D model.
The heat generated at a point in the field by absorp-
tion of US is given by q ⫽ ⫺ƒI, where I is the local
intensity of the US and ␣ is the amplitude absorption
coefficient. In the models, the approximation:
q ⫽ 2␣I (1)
was used, which has been shown to be a good approxi-
mation of the heating in the focal region of a focused
source (Nyborg 1986). A single value was used for the
absorption coefficient because modelling nonlinear prop-
agation was beyond the scope of this paper. It was
assumed that the absorption coefficient equalled the at-
Table 2. Characteristics of ultrasound beam at 80 mm
from transducer
Peak positive pressure (kPa) 1000 ⫾ 200
Peak negative pressure (kPa) 640 ⫾ 80
⫺6 dB beam diameter (mm) 2.9 ⫾ 0.6
Ispta (W cm⫺2} 0.53 ⫾ 0.16
Pulse length (␮s) 4.6 ⫾ 0.4
Pulse repetition rate (kHz) 6.8
All uncertainties are at 95% confidence level.
1349
Fig. 3. Stepped intensity distribution used in FE model com-
pared with cubic spline fit of measured data.
tenuation coefficient. Allowance had to be made for the
reflection that occurred at the surface of the bone mimic.
Calculations based on the acoustic impedance mismatch
showed that this led to a 12% reduction in the acoustic
intensity inside the bone mimic. This was incorporated in
the FE model by reducing the heating by 12%.
The temperature at any point within the FE model is
a function of the heat generation at certain nodal points
and, by altering the “loading” at these nodes, it is pos-
sible to simulate the pattern of heat generation arising
from different intensity distributions. Two distributions
were considered: a “top hat” intensity distribution and a
more realistic distribution based on the measured beam
profile. In the “top hat” approximation, the intensity, Ith,
within a region was defined by the following equations:
I th ⫽ 4W/ ␲ d 62 r ⱕ d 6/ 2 (2)
I th ⫽ 0 r ⬎ d 6/ 2 (3)
where: W ⫽ acoustic power, r ⫽ distance from beam
axis and d6 ⫽ ⫺6 dB beam diameter.
Carstensen et al. (1990) showed that this gave re-
sults comparable with more complex intensity distribu-
tions. The realistic distribution used the intensity values
obtained from the beam calibrator and the nodes were
loaded with a heat generation based on the intensity
recorded by the hydrophone element at that position.
Because the hydrophone elements are finite in size, and
larger than the nodal spacing, this gave a stepped inten-
sity distribution. Figure 3 compares a cubic spline fit of
the measured intensity values with this stepped intensity
distribution. Initial tests (Doody 1998) showed that it
was adequate to model the distribution out to a distance
1350 Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Volume 26, Number 8, 2000

Fig. 4. Boundary conditions.

of 4.5 mm from the beam axis, an area within which the

acoustic power ⫽ 40 mW, because increasing this dis-
tance to 7.5 mm increased the axial temperature rise by
only 3%. For both distributions, it was assumed that the Fig. 5. Finite element mesh.
shape of the distribution did not change relative to the
distribution measured in water at 80 mm from the trans-
ducer, the only change being that the intensity underwent
that share this node very narrow, the heat generation in
exponential decay. This is reasonable because the atten-
this layer is limited to a very small volume and does not
uation is such that the intensity is reduced to half its
produce a significant error. The presence of this layer of
original value in less than 1 mm; a distance small enough
elements reduced the temperature rise at the surface of
to make any change in beam diameter insignificant.
the bone mimic by 10%, compared with a model in
It has been shown that the boundary conditions can
which the elements on either side of the interface were of
significantly affect the results obtained when modelling
length 0.25 mm. The mesh used in the model is shown in
heating (Wu and Du 1990). In the FE model, the upper
Fig. 5 (the narrow layer of elements at the front of the
and lower surfaces of the phantom, which were in con-
bone mimic is not visible at this scale).
tact with water, were given convective boundary condi-
The FE results were compared with models that
tions and the outer edge, which was surrounded by the
used the point source solution to the BHTE. Nyborg
PVC tubing, was considered to be adiabatic and so no
(1986) showed that the temperature elevation, ⌬T, at a
heat flowed across it. The value chosen for the convec-
distance, r, from a small source of volume dv that has been
tion coefficient was 400 W m⫺2 K⫺1, a value that is in
generating heat at a rate qvdv for a time t is given by:
the centre of the range (200 to 600 W m⫺2 K⫺1) quoted
by Thomas (1992) for natural convection in water;
choosing values at either end of the range was found to ⌬T ⫽ 共C/r兲兵E关2 ⫺ erfc共t* ⫺ R兲兴 ⫹ E⫺1erfc共T* ⫹ R兲其 (4)
change the predicted temperature rise at the front surface
of the bone mimic by less than 2%. The boundary con- where erfc is the complimentary error function and the
ditions are illustrated in Fig. 4. other parameters are defined as follows:
Meshing, the process in FEM of subdividing each
area into elements, has important implications for the q vdv
C⫽ , (5)
accuracy of the model, so initial tests were carried out to 8␲K
determine how large the elements could be without ad-
versely affecting the results. These showed that, in the E ⫽ exp共 ⫺ r/L兲 (6)
region where the beam intersected the bone mimic, an
element edge length of 0.25 mm was acceptable. It was L ⫽ 冑k ␶ , (7)

冑
also found necessary to have a very narrow, 0.01 mm,
layer of elements in the agar layer immediately adjacent t
t* ⫽ (8)
to the bone mimic. This was due to the fact that the node ␶
at the front surface of the bone mimic layer was shared
with the agar layer, so the heat generation at this point r
R⫽ , (9)
influenced both materials. By making the agar elements 冑4kt
 Numerical modelling of tissue heating ● C. DOODY et al. 1351

where k ⫽ thermal diffusivity, K ⫽ thermal conductivity

and ␶ ⫽ perfusion time constant.
The temperature rise at any point can then be cal-
culated by integrating this solution over the region that is
heated by the US. Two approaches to predicting the
temperature rise on axis at the surface of a layer of bone
were implemented using Matlab (Mathworks Inc.,
Natwick, MA) and the integrations involved were carried
out numerically. The first modelled the bone as an infi-
nitely thin disc, as in the Carstensen model, and per-
formed a surface integration. It was assumed that 50% of
the energy in the beam was converted to heat at the bone
surface, as is implicit in the calculations of the bone Fig. 6. FE model using only one set of thermal properties.
thermal index defined in the ODS. This will be called the
disc model. The second approach was that adopted by
Shaw (1994), in which a volume integration is carried
nodes within the element leading to a spatial averaging
out over the region where the US beam intercepts the
not present in the other models; there are also differences
tissue. This assumed that 88% of the incident energy
in the boundary conditions between the models.
entered the bone (i.e., the reflection coefficient was as-
After the effect of the difference between the two
sumed to be 12% as in the FE model) and the beam
techniques had been determined, the advantages of being
underwent exponential decay inside the bone layer re-
able to use the correct thermal properties in each layer of
sulting in the heat source given by eqn (1). This will be
the FE model were investigated. The added complexity
called the volume heating (VH) model. In both models,
of the FE technique is only worthwhile if the results
the perfusion time constant was set at 106 s, effectively
obtained are more accurate than those from the other
modelling a system with no perfusion, and a top hat
techniques. Figure 8 shows the results obtained from an
intensity distribution was assumed. The nature of the
FE model in which each layer has the correct thermal
point source solution means that only one set of thermal
properties and from the two techniques that used the
parameters could be used throughout these models and
point source solution to the BHTE. There are two sets of
all heat transfer was due to thermal conduction, with the
results from the VH model: one generated using the
boundary of the region being at infinity.
thermal properties of agar throughout and the other using
the properties of the bone mimic; the disc model used the
RESULTS thermal properties of agar. The top hat intensity distri-
bution was used in all cases. It can be seen that the
A series of comparisons were carried out to deter-
mine which aspects of the model significantly influenced
the results. The first was to compare FE and VH models
of the same structure, with the only difference being in
the boundary conditions. The nature of the disc model
means that it is not possible to change the structure
inherent in its calculations, so it was excluded from this
comparison. A FE model was produced in which all the
layers had the thermal properties of the bone mimic, but
the only region in which heat was generated was the part
of the model corresponding to the bone mimic layer; this
is shown in Fig. 6. The solution from this model was
compared to that from the VH model; in both cases a top
hat intensity distribution was assumed. The results are
shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that there is very good
agreement between the models, with less than a 2%
difference in the predicted temperature rise at 300 s. It is
reasonable to see small differences in the results due to
the fundamental differences between the two techniques:
in FE model, for example, the distribution of the heat
source is obtained by considering the loading of all the Fig. 7. FE and VH results for the same structure.
1352 Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Volume 26, Number 8, 2000

Fig. 9. Predicted temperature rise inside bone mimic.

Fig. 8. Comparison of results from FE layered model, disc and
VH techniques.

ature rise due to three intensity distributions, a top hat, a

predicted temperature rise at 300 s varies by over 3 K Gaussian and an O’Neillian distribution, was calculated
depending upon the modelling technique chosen. The and the difference was found to be only 6%. None of
VH results obtained using the properties of PTFE are these distributions was a good model for the beam used
over 2 K higher than those from the FE. When the in this experiment, as can be seen from Fig. 10, which
thermal properties in the VH model are changed to those shows the three distributions and the stepped distribution
of agar, rather than PTFE, the predicted temperature rise obtained from the measured intensity values. The top hat,
falls by over 3 K (44%). This demonstrates the difficulty Gaussian and O’Neillian distributions all have the mea-
of using the VH technique in layered materials where the sured ⫺6 dB beam diameter (2.9 mm) and power (50
thermal properties of adjacent layers are significantly mW). Figure 11 shows the results obtained when an FE
different. Figure 8 also shows that the results closest to model using the stepped distribution was compared with
those from the FE model after the initial phase of the one using a top hat distribution. The stepped distribution
heating lasting approximately 20 s, are those from the leads to a predicted temperature rise at 300 s of 2.7 K
disc model. Although this is encouraging, especially compared with 5 K from the top hat distribution, a fall of
because this technique is the basis for some of the 46%.
thermal index formula for bone in the ODS, it should be
noted that the results from this model would not change
even if the absorption coefficient or thickness of the bone
mimic were altered. The VH and the FE techniques both
model the temperature rise inside the bone mimic, as
well as at the surface (the disc method assumes that the
bone is infinitely thin so, although it can predict the
temperature rise at a distance from the disc, this is not
really “inside” the bone). Figure 9 shows the predicted
temperature rise inside the bone at 300 s. It can be seen
that the range of values for the maximum predicted
temperature rise, which is inside the bone, is even greater
than the range of values at the front of the mimic.
The next step was to study the influence of the
intensity distribution used in the model. The intensity
distribution can be included in models based on the point
source solution to the BHTE, as shown for example by
Carstensen et al. (1990) and Shaw (1994), as well as in Fig. 10. Intensity distributions that could be used to model
FE models. In report 113 of NCRP (1992), the temper- beam. In all cases, beam width equals measured value.
 Numerical modelling of tissue heating ● C. DOODY et al.
Fig. 11. FE results for top hat and stepped intensity distribu-
tions.
Another factor that had to be considered was the
exact measurement position. It is known that high-tem-
perature gradients can cause small errors in thermocou-
ple positioning to generate large errors in the temperature
reading (Kolios et al. 1998) and this had to be taken into
account when comparing the experimental results with
those from the model. The FE model suggested that the
temperature gradient was over 1 K mm⫺1 in the mm of
agar directly overlying the bone mimic. Measurements
carried out with the phantom in different orientations
with respect to the beam and at different distances from
the transducer had suggested that the measurement po-
sition was actually 0.5 mm from the surface of the bone
mimic (Doody 1998). This distance seemed reasonable
because the thermocouple wire was attached to the
mimic approximately 1 cm from the junction, so as not to
introduce extra materials into the beam. The structure of
the bone mimic, a flat layer of PTFE, made it difficult to
ensure that there was direct contact between the wire and
the bone mimic, especially as the nature of the thermo-
couples, lengths of 50 ␮m wire that were twisted to-
gether and welded, meant that they tended not to lie flat.
Figure 12 compares the results from the FE model, using
the stepped intensity distribution, with the experimental
measurements. The graph shows the predicted tempera-
ture rise at both the surface of the bone mimic and 0.5
mm from the surface in the agar. It can be seen that, if the
assumption about the position of the thermocouple is
correct, there is good agreement between the modelled
and measured temperature rise. It should be remembered,
however, that there are errors associated with both the
theoretical and experimental results. Repeatability mea-
surements carried out on bone suggest that the standard
1353
Fig. 12. Comparison of FE results and experimental measure-
ments.
deviation in the measured temperature rise was of the
order of 0.1 K. This includes errors arising from reposi-
tioning the sample between measurements, but not from
repositioning the thermocouple relative to the bone
mimic. There are also uncertainties associated with the
FE model itself. Factors such as the size of the elements,
the type of elements used and the way the intensity
distribution is translated into heating “loads” will affect
the accuracy of the model. When these factors were
considered in detail (Doody 1998), it was found that the
uncertainty arising from the modelling technique was of
the order of 10%. The largest uncertainties, however, are
those associated with the intensity measurements. It can
be seen from Table 2 that, at the 95% confidence limits,
there is a 30% uncertainty in the Ispta. Any uncertainty in
the intensity measurement will be directly reflected in the
heat generation and, therefore, the predictions from the
models must include this degree of uncertainty.
DISCUSSION
The range of predicted values for the temperature
rise obtained from different models of the same system
shows the importance of considering the assumptions
made by the different modelling techniques. It is clear
that, where there are significant differences in the ther-
mal properties of the tissue layers, using a solution based
on the point source solution to the BHTE can introduce
errors. One reason for this is the fact that this solution
can only include one set of thermal properties. The effect
of the thermal parameters on the predicted temperature
rise can be seen by comparing the two techniques that
consider the bone mimic as a volume heat source: the
VH and FE models. When the thermal properties of agar
were used throughout the VH model, the predicted tem-
perature rise at the front surface of the bone mimic was
1354 Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
27% lower than in the layered (FE) model, and using the
thermal properties of the bone mimic throughout the
model caused the temperature rise to be overestimated by
approximately 40%. These differences are due, almost
entirely, to the thermal conductivity values because the
specific heat affects only the rate of heating and, as can
be seen from Fig. 8, by 300 s the steady-state values are
being approached. The thermal conductivity of the bone
mimic, 0.33 W m⫺1K⫺1 is approximately half that of the
agar, 0.609 W m⫺1K⫺1 and, hence, when using the point
source solution to the BHTE, the predicted temperature
rise depends heavily on the value chosen. Thermal con-
ductivity values reported in the literature for real bone
vary considerably: Biyikli et al. (1986) give values for
fresh femur in the range of 0.25 to 0.34 W m K⫺1, and
Gordon et al. (1976) use a value of 0.58 W m K⫺1 for
cancellous bone; this is much closer to the value for soft
tissue. If the differences in thermal conductivity values
between tissue layers are small, as would be the case if
the value reported by Gordon and colleagues was appro-
priate, use of the VH technique may be acceptable. If,
however, the appropriate value is that reported by Bi-
yikli, it may be necessary to use a model that can cope
with differences in the thermal properties of the different
tissue layers. The disc approach uses the simplifying
assumption that the bone can be considered as an infi-
nitely thin disc that absorbs 50% of the power incident
upon it. It can be seen that the predicted temperature rise
at 300 s from this model is closer to the FEM result than
either version of the VH model. Although this is reas-
suring because the FEM results would be expected to be
the most accurate due to the fact that this technique can
reflect the different properties of the layers, it should be
remembered that changes to many features of the bone
mimic would not effect the predictions from this model.
In a situation where the layer of bone was much thinner
than that used here, for example, the disc model would
give the same result and the predictions from the FE
model would be reduced.
The fact that the agar used in the phantom was
minimally attenuating and, hence, was assumed to gen-
erate no heat, means that the heat flow from the bone
mimic into the agar is greater than would occur if the
agar was replaced with soft tissue. However, even if this
were done, the large difference between the attenuation
coefficients of bone and soft tissue would still lead to
considerable heat flow from the bone, making it neces-
sary to consider the thermal conductivity of both mate-
rials.
The models also show the importance of including
the intensity distribution in the calculations. It can be
seen from Fig. 10 that none of the distributions consid-
ered in NCRP 113, O’Neillian, Gaussian or top hat,
modelled the measured intensity distribution adequately.
Volume 26, Number 8, 2000
The beam profile used in the measurements deposited
significantly more power outside the region defined by
the ⫺6 dB beam diameter than any of these distributions,
so gave a lower temperature rise on axis. The fact that
these three distributions give similar results should not,
therefore, be taken to mean that the intensity distribution
is unimportant. It must be remembered, however, that the
results presented here are for an unperfused system. The
model of perfusion assumed in the Nyborg (1988) solu-
tion to the BHTE is one in which the perfusion term acts
as a heat sink, removing the heat from the region of
interest. Shaw et al. (1996) considered the effect of this
and found that, for beams similar to the one used here
and at the perfusion rate assumed by NCRP, perfusion
made relatively little difference to the temperature rise,
approximately 10% at 300 s. The effect of perfusion was
very similar for top hat and Gaussian beam profiles.
Other models of perfusion, however, consider heat trans-
port in the blood by, for example, including an enhanced
conduction term (Arkin et al. 1994). In these, where
perfusion transports the heat to cooler areas, it might be
expected that the intensity distribution would be less
significant. The perfusion of bone, however, is much less
than that of soft tissue (NCRP 1992) and it may be that,
as with the thermal conductivity, it is necessary to con-
sider the perfusion constants for both layers. This is
beyond the scope of the present model.
The difficulties in modelling highlight the useful-
ness of alternative approaches to predict heating, such as
the use of thermal phantoms. These have been used by
groups such as O’Neill et al. (1994), Pay et al. (1998) and
Wu et al. (1995). Although phantoms can yield much
useful information, there is still a need for modelling
because phantoms only allow temperature to be mea-
sured at discrete points in a set structure. Without the
information available from models, information on de-
tails such as the maximum temperature rise, which is
inside the bone, may be missed.
SUMMARY
The importance of considering the assumptions
made by a modelling technique when trying to predict
the temperature rise in bone has been demonstrated, with
specific reference to techniques based on the point source
solution to the BHTE and FE models. Techniques based
on the Nyborg solution to the BHTE can only use one
thermal conductivity value in the model, which can lead
to significant errors in the predicted temperature rise.
When compared to a layered FE model, the VH tech-
nique overestimated the temperature rise at the surface of
unperfused bone mimic by 41% when the thermal prop-
erties of PTFE were used and underestimated the tem-
perature rise by 21% when those of agar were used
 Numerical modelling of tissue heating ● C. DOODY et al.
throughout the model. When the simpler disc model is
considered, the agreement is better. The predicted tem-
perature rise at 300 s is 0.8 K (16%) below that from the
FE model. This relatively good agreement is encouraging
because some of the calculations of the thermal index for
bone (TIB) in the output display standard are based on
such a model. It must be remembered, however, that
good agreement for this particular case does not fully
justify the use of this technique. Many changes in the
structure of the phantom that might change the measured
temperature rise, for example, a reduction in the absorp-
tion coefficient of the bone mimic to reflect that of fetal
bone, would not effect the results from the disc model.
The errors arising from the different modelling tech-
niques may be compounded by using a “top hat” inten-
sity distribution. In the example shown, the predicted
temperature rise for a top hat distribution was 5.0 K
compared with 2.7 K for the stepped distribution based
on measured values; an overestimate of over 80%.
FEM allows models to be constructed in which the
correct thermal properties are ascribed to each layer and
appropriate boundary conditions applied. When this is
combined with an appropriate representation of the in-
tensity distribution, the results obtained for layered ma-
terials in which there is a large difference in thermal
properties can be significantly more accurate than those
obtained using Nyborg’s solution to the BHTE and a top
hat intensity distribution. The cost of this accuracy, how-
ever, is increased complexity in the calculations.
Acknowledgements—The authors thank Dr. Andrew Baker of Christian
Michelsen Research AS, Bergen, Norway, formerly of Bath University,
and Dr Bajram Zeqiri of the National Physical Laboratory for their help
with this work.
REFERENCES
AIUM/NEMA. Standard for the real-time display of thermal and me-
chanical acoustic output indices on diagnostic ultrasound equip-
ment. Rockville, MD: AIUM/NEMA, 1992.
Arkin H, Xu LX, Holmes KR. Recent developments in modelling heat
transfer in blood perfused tissues. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1994;
41(2):97–107.
Barnett SB. Ultrasound-induced heating and its biological conse-
quences. In: ter Haar G, Duck F, eds. The safe use of ultrasound in
medical diagnosis. London: BIR, 2000.
Biyikli S, Modest MF, Tarr R. Measurements of thermal properties for
human femura. J Biomed Materials Res 1986;20:1335–1345.
Bouakkaz A, Cachard C, Gimenez G. Evaluation de l’agar, materiau
solide presentant des caracteristiques acoustiques equivalentes a
celles de l’eau. J Phys 1994;C5:1221–1224.
Carstensen EL, Child SZ, Norton S, Nyborg W. Ultrasonic heating of
the skull. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87(3):1310 –1317.
Chatterjee I, Adams RE. Finite element thermal modelling of the
1355
human body under hyperthermia conditions. Int J Computer Appl
Technol 1994;7:151–159.
Clegg ST, Samulski TV, Murphy KA, Rosner GL, Dewhirst MW.
Inverse techniques in hyperthermia: A sensitivity study. IEEE
Trans Biomed Eng 1994;41(4):373–380.
Doody C. Heating of fetal bone by diagnostic ultrasound. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Bath, 1998.
Duck F. Physical properties of tissue. London: Academic Press, 1990.
Glenn TN, Rastegar S, Jacques SL. Finite element analysis of temper-
ature Controlled coagulation in laser irradiated tissue. IEEE Trans
Biomed Eng 1996;43(1):79 – 87.
Gordon R, Roemer R, Howarth S. A mathematical model of the human
temperature regulatory system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1976;
BME-23:434 – 444.
Jago JR, Henderson J, Whittingham TA, Mitchell G. A comparison of
AIUM/NEMA thermal indices with calculated temperature rises for
a simple model third-trimester pregnancy tissue model. Ultrasound
Med Biol. 1999;25(4):623– 628.
Kagawa Y, Takeuchi K, Yamabuchi T. A simulation of ultrasonic
hyperthermia using a finite element model. IEEE Trans Ultrason
Ferroelec Freq Control 1986;33(6):765–777.
Kolios MC, Worthington AE, Sherar MD, Hunt JW. Experimental
evaluation of two simple thermal models using transient tempera-
ture analysis. Phys Med Biol 1998;43:3325–3340.
NCRP. Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: 1. Criteria
based on thermal mechanisms Report No. 113. Bethesda, MD:
National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurement, 1992.
Nyborg WL. Sonically produced heat in a fluid with bulk viscosity and
shear viscosity. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;80(4):1133–1139.
Nyborg WL. Solutions of the bio-heat transfer equation. Phys Med Biol
1988;33(7):785–792.
O’Neill TP, Winkler AJ, Wu J. Ultrasound heating in a tissue-bone
phantom. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994;20(6):579 –588.
Pay N, Shaw A, Bond A. Evaluation of potential bone mimicking
materials for ultrasound thermal test objects NPL Report CMAM
10. Teddington, UK: National Physical Laboratory, 1998.
Perkins MA. A versatile force balance for ultrasound power measure-
ment. Phys Med Biol 1989;34(11):1645–1651.
Preston RC. The NPL ultrasound beam calibrator. IEEE Trans Ultrason
Ferroelec Freq Control 1988;35:122–139.
Shaw A. Prediction of temperature rise in layered media from measured
ultrasonic intensity data. Phys Med Biol 1994;39(8):1203–1218.
Shaw A, Pay NM, Preston RC. Assessment of the likely thermal index
values for pulsed ultrasonic equipment—Stages II and III: Exper-
imental assessment of scanner/transducer combinations NPL Report
CMAM 12. Teddington, UK: National Physical Laboratory, 1998.
Shaw A, Preston RC, Bacon DR. Perfusion correction for ultrasonic
media in nonperfused media. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996;22(2):
203–216.
ter Haar GR. Commentary: Safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Br J Radiol
1996;69:1083–1085.
Thomas LC. Heat transfer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.
WFUMB. WFUMB statements on thermal effects in clinical applica-
tions. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998;S1:13.
Wong TZ, Mechling JA, Jones EL, Strohbehn JW. Transient finite
element analysis of thermal methods used to estimate SAR and
blood flow in homogeneously perfused tumour models. Int J Hy-
pertherm 1988;4(6):571–592.
Wu J, Du G. Temperature elevation generated by a focused Gaussian
beam of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990;16(5):489 – 498.
Wu J, Cubberley F, Gormley G, Szabo TL. Temperature rise generated
by diagnostic ultrasound in a transcranial phantom. Ultrasound Med
Biol 1995;21(4):561–568.